A good example of how money and resources can be used to influence what research gets done.
Gun owners face much higher murder risks, researchers said. Then the NRA silenced them.
Amber Hall, The Takeaway
PRI - PRI - Monday, April 13, 2015
Back in the early 1990s, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control provided funding for studies on gun violence. The NRA was not pleased. "[Our research] underwent peer review and was thought to be very solid and worthwhile research," says Dr. Fred Rivara, who was part of the team that researched gun violence. "The CDC stood by our research — they had funded it...
Sent from Windows Mail
The fact that the possession and ownership of firearm increases the likelihood of murder and suicide, further provides support for strict gun laws. However, i do think owning a gun should be a choice for rational people with no criminal record.
ReplyDeleteThe part of this interview that impacted me the most was the fact that Dr. Rivara was "frightened" by the NRA rejecting his research. I had never realized how terrifying it was that our political system could shoot down scientific evidence that was widely agreed upon and published, but it definitely is. I liked how the interviewer asked Dr. Rivara about his personal feelings towards being shot down, and thought it was interesting that he considered it "good" that they reacted so strongly because it meant that they were doing important work. The NRA reacting so negatively to the research demonstrated how intimidated they were by the evidence because it directly counteracted their legitimacy.
ReplyDeleteI could talk about this topic for days. However, I would keep it clear and concise. If you make possession of a firearm legal or illegal you will still have high risk of homicide, suicide and other crimes. Allow possession of a firearm will decrease crimes a little because you do not know who is carry the firearm and how much training they have with the firearm. First you must have in class training and range on a firearm. Also an annual training in the range as well. If someone is about to commit a robbery they will second think it because that old lady who would normally be a victim is now able and have basic training on a firearm to protect herself.
ReplyDeleteI don't hold any personal opinion on whether firearms should be made illegal or not, but I was deeply troubled by the line of reasoning expressed by the study coordinators. They claimed that the presence of a firearm in an home leads to a three-fold increase in homicide in addition to a ten-fold increase in suicides. Why cherry-pick this particular observation when there are a plenty of other observations to be made in the whole of the data regarding homicide/suicide rates. Why not comment about the effect that knives in the home have on the levels of murder? On the other hand, having a gun in the home makes committing murder a more accessible act, but you could say the exact same thing about knives, pills, poison, blunt objects, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI think this is kind of a disingenuous reaction. This was a study about guns, not about homicide/suicide rates or the danger of common household objects, so that's what they talked about. They didn't comment on what effect having knives has because that's not what they were studying.
DeleteThe only line of reasoning they used was looking at the rate of homicides and suicides of households that had firearms and those that didn't and compiled them. That's just the facts
I grew up in a small town in Maryland. My family did not own guns, but my friend's parents did. I am not for or against a person who decides to own a gun, but I do not agree with the result of Rivera's research. According to his research he discovered that owning a gun at home increases the chances of suicide. I believe there is so many other factors that contribute to suicide. Some of these factors can be mental illnesses, economic status, bullying and many more. Just because there is a correlation between owning a gun and rates of suicide does not mean that one causes the other. Research is the best way to understand society, I also disagree with the way the Center of Disease and Control handled the situation. They decided to cut down/end any funding for gun research. I think with further research there could've been valuable information not only about gun control but also suicide.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that you said you "disagreed" with the results of the research. The entire point of research is to use facts to come to some kind of objective truth. The only thing the researchers did was look at the facts, which households have guns, which households are affected by suicide and homicide, and compared them. Then they said what the comparison showed. Not having seen the data yourself, I don't know how you can disagree with that.
DeleteCertainly, there are other factors that contribute to suicide, but the researcher never claimed that guns cause suicide, or that guns are the leading factor influencing suicide. All they said was that households who own guns are more likely to be affected.
The most chilling part of this story for me was how the NRA silenced the facts that they "disagree" with. Using money to suppress science and research is a despicable tactic and that's the real focus of this article.
Also, the CDC didn't cut their own funding. The NRA influenced Congress to cut the CDC's budget.
The article is not about how guns influence suicide. Of course there are many other factors that influence it, but this article is not about that. If someone wants to commit suicide and there happens to b a gun in the home, they will most likely choose the gun because it is quick. With that being said, you can't disagree with research unless you have research of your own that refutes it. The facts that they found were obviously correct because the government investigated this research and found nothing to be untrue. Also, the CDC did not handle the situation in anyway, they were in complete support of it. The NRA went to those in Congress who are "pro-gun" to get this research stopped. It is sad that people care more about their guns than the lives of others being lost to them. It really shows you what type of country we live in.
DeleteI personally do not even know anybody that owns a gun but I do believe that it should be an individual choice that people make, granted that they are fit to own one in terms of criminal records and mental health. This is such a controversial issue in this country, especially with the number of fatal shootings that have occurred in the recent past. What this research found is somewhat surprising in terms of the fact that "the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults increases tenfold" when there's a gun in the home. I wouldn't have expected the correlation to be that high and if anything that serves as proof that we need gun control laws in this country. It is disappointing that the people that have the ability to make a positive change in society choose to do whatever benefits them most without thinking of the harm they may be causing.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern with this article is that no one stopped to even considered the lives that we are losing. Carrying a firearm seems to be more important than the life of a teen or those who have me killed due to firearms in the home. I personally believe in being able to bear arms but I think that they could have handled the situation a little better than to just sweep the research under the rug. I understand that these people want to keep there rights to carry but the question now is at what cost. why not come up with mandatory gun safe regulations or classes. Don't just ignore the fact that people are dying. No to mention they scared everyone out of furthering the research at all. I am extremely disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that having a gun in the house do bring up the chances that somebody will commit suicide. The reason is because guns at home are easily accessible for the owner and other family members who know where it is located. That brings more chances than to think in what other way the person will commit suicide. But that is obviously if that person is already seriously thinking in suicide. But the main point here is that the NRA tried for a period of time to shut "independent" research studies, something that its against what Americans consider as "liberty." I am not surprise that the NRA did it thought. As we have learned in classes, private organizations try to influence our government for their interests. This is an example of it. I am pretty sure that there are other research or news about the environment issues, immigrant reforms, or other country concerns that are shut-down because if third party's interest in keeping it quite.
ReplyDeletesometimes when people are having a crisis, they then to find the most quick solution
The most depressing thing about this article is the fact that guns in the home increase ''the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults ... tenfold''. This is lives that could otherwise be saved with a more sane gun policy. The other tragic fact is how corrupt politicians use their power as democratically elected, to silence scientific research and knowledge. They will perhaps even convince themselves that the reason for doing that is the second amendment but in reality the NSA, just like other large corporations, use their financial power to influence politics by supporting them as candidates and using that later to get their will through. This article clearly shows, if the research is correct and it seems that it is, that the current political system is hurting people and taking lives. This is only one example, there are many others (the work against minimum wages, healthcare etc) which are hurting the American people. All is naturally done under the banner of idealogical slogans. - Visar Berisha
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, gun violence has become a rising issue throughout American society for years now and it is a shame that this problem has continued to affect citizens all over our nation. I used to think I could relate to individuals who choose to keep guns in their households for protection but after reading that the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults increases due to homeowners owning guns, I am now hesitant to say if this is beneficial for US citizens. Safety should be our number one concern as a nation so if homicide/suicide is increasing due to homeowners owning guns then this is definitely an issue that should continued to be researched more thoroughly. The rising deaths of adolescents and young adults is something that cannot be ignored and it is important that we try and get to the bottom of this horrible problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I believe that such research is not done to take a away guns completely, but to protect us from otherwise avoidable deaths. Research does not always guarantee change, but it this case, the NRA was worried it definitely would.
DeleteThe fact that the NRA rejected research showing the negative impact of gun ownership doesn't surprise me. I think when research is ignored or skewed that proves detrimental to humans or other victims, a line is crossed. There are environmental scientists that are paid to agree with the anti global warming campaign. When the safety and well being of others is put at risk to further someone's agenda, that can't be ignored.
ReplyDeleteMoney controls everything and this article is a great representation of that. Word of mouth can only get so far, even on the topic of gun control. Statistics and research are not necessary to prove the US has a gun problem. Gun ownership seems to be ingrained into our society and so any argument against falls on deaf ears… until incidents like Columbine or Sandy Hook happen. Budget cuts in the CDC make research almost impossible, which is unfair for the victims of gun violence, accidental or not. As the title of the article implies, “Gun owners face much higher murder risks, researchers said.”
ReplyDeleteI believe gun control is important but the problem i have is the way we are handling it. Rivers research says that owing a gun increases the chances of suicide, and homicide. There are so many factors that contribute to suicide, mental illnesses, economic status and many other. Most people have guns for many different reason not just protection but to simply say guns are "bad" and label it as a leading factor for suicide and other things is not going to chnage peoples mind. Also the NRA turning a blind eye on research is also problem.
ReplyDeleteAs for gun control laws, I do believe that there should be restraints to an extent. I don't think that allowing anyone to carry a gun around in public will decrease crime or prevent violence enough that it should be implemented. Even strict criteria that would prevent convicts and people with records from getting firearms would fail to do so because of the black market, and thus criminals will have weapons and more or less blend in with everyone else who supports open weapon policies. As for the research, I can see why the data shows that owning weapons can increase suicide and homicide, but there are also many psychological reasons behind suicide and homicide, but readily available guns can turn the thoughts into actions.
ReplyDeleteOf course you are more likely to be killed by a gun if there is a gun in your home. That makes sense-it logical. The most disturbing part of this article/interview is that politics and organizations are still controlling research, researcher, and our access to needed knowledge. Information that could save hundred, thousands, and possible millions of people starting in the '80s was caught up in red tape and mark classified.
ReplyDeleteI found it surprising that having a gun is associated with an increased risk of homicide and suicide. I do not think it is fair for the funding for the CDC gun research to be cut because it conflicts with the views of the National Rifle Association and their pro-gun ownership views. I did not like the fact the researchers scientific background and experience was being questioned when the gun rifle research was being conducted.
ReplyDeleteIt is troubling to see that money can buy so much influence in a country that claims to have freedom of speech and fair representation for all citizens. This article shows an example of one of the mechanisms behind inequality: that there are so many underhand ways for people with money to get what they want. It also shows that the rich don’t always have the interests of citizens in mind, especially when they meddle with issues that affect safety.
ReplyDeleteSara-Ruth Gabriel
ReplyDeleteI do not find it surprising that the increase in guns is an associated with the increase in homicide and suicide. If somebody knows a weapon is in reach they will use it, nobody who they are. What I do not understand is why are people still buying guns when they have little kids in the house. Those same little kids will grow up and start to get curious, and no matter how hidden your gun could be their curiosity will override their safety. I personal believe that nobody should use guns, however we should go back to the bow and arrow days so at least it would take skill to kill somebody.
It makes sense that having guns makes it more likely to commit suicide and homicides. There are many cases were people come into others houses and use the owners weapons against them. Also there are cases were children find there parents weapons and shot themselves or other people. This article shows that the system that we have is not at all about finding truth but in reality serving the demands of the powerful and or wealthy. In this case it was the NRA using their power to stop information that could harm their case.
ReplyDeleteThis is a truly terrifying example of how financial and political interests can not only influence research, but actually shut it down. I think one of the most important lessons to take away from this is that we need to keep talking about it and to educate ourselves and other people on the matter. We need to know enough to demand that politicians back their policies with a lot of research that has been conducted by several different institutions and scholars, and can be reviewed thoroughly. No one should be able to stand in the senate or congress or an equivalent and say that gun control is redundant or ineffective, without backing it up with research and addressing research to the contrary with solid counter-arguments. If the pro-gun politicians can not do that, people should not stand for it. And that goes for pretty much every other subject there is. Shutting down funding or discrediting research based on ideological, financial or political grounds only serves to prove that these people can not argue against the results using fair play. And people should take the time to call them out on it. - Malin Niklasson
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the research done by Rivera is pointless. Obviously the NRA is going to shutdown research that is going to affect the sales of their product, any other institution would do the same. I think that it is common sense that owning a gun will increase the chances of suicide or homicide within a household. Having access to a weapon of such creates more opportunity for these situations to arise, and quite honestly I do not see why someone would need to allocate a budget to conclude findings on that. The issue is simple, citizens have the right to bear arms, and the right is not going to be taken away. Rather then trying to prove the damage that these weapons can cause--the research should be focused on ways to properly educate gun holders to help decrease the number of homocides and suicides that occur.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
What is most frustrating about this article is the reminder of how powerful money is when it comes to influential research. While this article looks at the silencing of conclusions found while investigating the death risk among gun owners, we need to think deeper into what sort influences money has one other research. Money donated influences what sort of diseases are investigated, and diseases that affect those in power more are the ones that funded the most, which in turn have a higher likelihood for finding either a cure of alleviation. As a society that relies on biomedical knowledge being seen as experts, how can we rely on what they say if money if stagnating and influential claims? This loaded a question that should be addressed to pharmaceutical companies.
ReplyDeleteI would like to start my comment with a satirical analogy... "spoons make people fat." I don't really feel like I need to continue explaining my point of view, but for the sake of making this a longer comment, I will continue.
ReplyDeletePeople should be allowed to use guns under proper certification and regulation. Like most hot button topics in Government, it all comes back to money. Our forefathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew what America has become. Politics were never suppose to be this way, and people were never meant to be governed the way they are today.
Wow. I can't believe that Congress stopped research for gun research just because of ideological differences. If people's lives are stake, how can they possibly think that it is acceptable to stop possibly life-saving research simply because they don't like the results.
ReplyDeleteThe right to bear arms is a constitutional right, so I doubt that guns can be outlawed (I'm not too familiar with the specifics), but this research can lead to better regulation that can prevent many deaths.
Gun control in the United States has been an ongoing issue for many years in the United States. What people fail to realize is that guns aren't being used for protection, but are being used for suicide. The article didn't go into much detail, but it brought up this great point that people fail to realize that not only teenagers, but adults use these guns for suicide. There have been several stories of adults ending their lives with the same guns they bought to use for "protection."
ReplyDeleteMy personal take on guns is that they are necessary, especially in the household. For example, a single mom in a household should 100% be able to have a handgun of some sort in the house for safety if an intruder is to come into the house. Facts about the numbers of homicides and suicides being higher in households with guns in them is frightening, but that doesn't change anything about the necessity for them. In this article alone, it shows how inequality is an issue with gun laws, because those government officials were able to pretty much strip the CDC of the money they were using for researching. Personally, I believe it comes down to a debate on the pros and cons of guns in the household. Protection as the pro, and the risk of suicide and/or homicide as the con.
ReplyDeleteJames Bull
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fight between stricter gun laws and the NRA is a topic that I've never really looked into, but if I had to make an opinion based off this article I would agree that in this so very stressful society we live in, their probably should be stricter gun laws, and it is outrageous that their research was halted the way it was. It makes sense that suicide rate would be higher, but mostly suicide for males. There was a study that showed males are more likely to use more violent tactics to commit suicide, which is why their rate is supposedly higher. And homicide rates being higher makes sense too, again because of the hostile society we live in. I'm not surprised that once again those in higher places use their power to benefit their selfish needs, however I read some of the comments left under the article that stated the CDC are strong advocates for more gun control so by any means necessary to rid the world of them, and if that is the case, it makes me question the researchers results a little bit more. I honestly don;t see the harm in having more gun laws, at least about who can own one, but even that is hard to say. I'd be a little more interested in reading more about this, especially with what is happening in the world today.
ReplyDeleteThe fight between stricter gun laws and the NRA is a topic that I've never really looked into, but if I had to make an opinion based off this article I would agree that in this so very stressful society we live in, their probably should be stricter gun laws, and it is outrageous that their research was halted the way it was. It makes sense that suicide rate would be higher, but mostly suicide for males. There was a study that showed males are more likely to use more violent tactics to commit suicide, which is why their rate is supposedly higher. And homicide rates being higher makes sense too, again because of the hostile society we live in. I'm not surprised that once again those in higher places use their power to benefit their selfish needs, however I read some of the comments left under the article that stated the CDC are strong advocates for more gun control so by any means necessary to rid the world of them, and if that is the case, it makes me question the researchers results a little bit more. I honestly don;t see the harm in having more gun laws, at least about who can own one, but even that is hard to say. I'd be a little more interested in reading more about this, especially with what is happening in the world today.
ReplyDeleteI think its pretty obvious that having a deadly weapon in your possession increases the risk of you or someone you know dying via the use of said weapon. That's not really the staggering part of this article. What's important, though, is the fact that the results of their research into this well-known subject were overwhelming enough to be completely silenced by the NRA. This tells me that there's probably a higher statistical correlation between guns and subsequent injuries/fatalities than the general public suspects in the first place--which I would assume most people agree there exists a pretty strong correlation already. Also, the fact that any sort of research can be completely discredited or pushed aside based on its content is concerning, regardless of the topic. It's essentially withholding truth from the general public and in an ideal world this should be reprehensible.
ReplyDelete-Greg Battista
Not surprised that the NRA attempted to silence the research that went into such an important study that highlighted such a controversial issue here in the US. As a student researcher myself, I fully understand what research findings can do or change with respect to specific issues at hand. Guns within the home, as stated in the article, can have devastating effects that NRA wanted to keep quiet for their own personal agendas. Having power here is crucial for any further research and publications to continue. This type of research fosters policy changes, and I believe that's what the NRA is worried about.
ReplyDeleteWhile the statistics regarding the rate of homicides and suicides when guns are present in households is very alarming, I am more apalled by the attempted manipulation and coverup by the NRA. However, this is not a new phenomenon, I believe politics and other motives often interferes with pure research and studies. Perhaps these type of things should be more transparent.
ReplyDeleteThis article speaks to the immense power and influence of interests groups and how easily politics can be bought and sold in America. In other countries this would be seen as corrupt but in America this is just people ensuring 2nd Amendment rights. When people argue that we still need the 2nd Amendment they forget that the Constitution is a "living document" and that we have gotten rid of Amendments before and will probably do so again. How does an interest group have enough money to essentially buy a government agency? How there are senators that allow themselves to be bought and threatened with money is also appalling as well. Furthermore we have and accept a system like this and act like its either not a problem or that nothing can be done about it because that just the way things are. How does the NRA even have this kind of money when there real issues like homelessness and hunger that does not have even half of the funding that the NRA gets so that people can use guns.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that gun owners are at a higher risk of death is surprising in itself, but it makes sense; while it's true that just having it won't add to the risk of wanting to commit suicide, it does make actually doing it easier. The way the NRA silences this research, though, is what's truly terrifying about this article; even if research suggests that allowing people to own guns will result in more people dead, if it goes against an organization's goal and this organization has enough power and influence, they will get the research shut down. It's like with school shootings; people dying doesn't matter to the NRA, as long as they can get what they want, and what they want is to be able to carry firearms. The fact that they can actually get away with this, though, and not just once, but consistently, should say something about what kind of country we live in.
ReplyDelete- Brian Kang
It’s amazing how the influence of money in politics and its ability to promote such corruption seems to be accepted in the United States. I think a lot of American treat these well-known research institutions like the CDC as unbiased sources, but we’ve seen time and time again that they are heavily influenced by money and politics. Is it that most Americans don’t care or aren’t informed?
ReplyDeleteAn analog to this (of which there are many) is the FDA’s response to full-body scanners in U.S. airports, which were proven safe after a large monetary injection by the TSA. That is, until a few UCSF researchers produced their own tests with opposite results [1].
[1] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/11/5810/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-against-airport-full-body-scans
-David Teitelbaum
It’s amazing how the influence of money in politics and its ability to promote such corruption seems to be accepted in the United States. I think a lot of American treat these well-known research institutions like the CDC as unbiased sources, but we’ve seen time and time again that they are heavily influenced by money and politics. Is it that most Americans don’t care or aren’t informed?
ReplyDeleteAn analog to this (of which there are many) is the FDA’s response to full-body scanners in U.S. airports, which were proven safe after a large monetary injection by the TSA. That is, until a few UCSF researchers produced their own tests with opposite results [1].
[1] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/11/5810/ucsf-scientists-speak-out-against-airport-full-body-scans
-David Teitelbaum
The NRA has always been a corrupt and morally-devoid institution so their effort to try to suppress scientific research does not surprise me. Unfortunately some of our nation's politicians have deep ties to the NRA which only continue the corruption and discontinue important research.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
I am not very surprised that there is an increased risk in homicide and suicide for gun owners in America. I agree with Brian Kang that it is quite terrifying that the NRA tries to silent this sort of research. Since the NRA regulates gun control, it is their responsibility to provide information and research on guns and those who own them. The NRA should be promoting safe gun practices and informing their members about the dangers of homicide and suicide so that they can make sure their members and those surrounding their members are safe. Rather than trying to work with these researchers or compromise solutions to fix these sort of issues, the NRA decides to just cover it up. This can be a great danger for the U.S. because this sort of research can help trace and stop acts of violence before they turn into mass killing sprees.
ReplyDelete