[trampypizza]

I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

Guns are a 'tool' I suppose, and therefore will always require a user. Not every gun owner is going to use it to kill people. It's harder then to make the argument that guns are inherently bad, it's the people using them incorrectly that is the problem. I certainly think that there are other factors in American society which contribute and to these horrible events, such as mental health and education. I think this because there are other countries, such as Canada, where many people have weapons but these tragedies occur a lot less often.

As a Brit, I think some of the gun stuff in the States is bananas, but I do recognise that there is a significant cultural difference that means I probably wont get why people are so keen to protect gun ownership to the extent that they do. I don't mean to suggest that either way is right or wrong, but I do feel that the use-case for an AR-15 is limited. Surely that's a bit over the top for hunting? And defending your home may be easier with a handgun. I am no expert though, and would be interested to hear some other views.

[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Edit: I should also say that I recognise that mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of gun-deaths and that they receive a disproportionate amount of media attention.

[jadell]

> I wonder if it is because the tobacco industry was fighting a war against the very direct link between smoking and cancer. Ultimately the science proved that smoking is damaging to your body, and that damage is expensive to fix, and the cost is somewhat paid for by society.

It would be great to have scientific evidence on mass gun ownership's effects on health and society, and linkages between gun violence, mental health, and a variety of other factors.

Unfortunately, Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from funding or studying research into those effects. Congress made that decision because of lobbying pressure by...let me check my notes here...huh, interesting, the NRA.

[CompanionCuuube]

> Congress forbids the federal health research bodies (NIH, CDC, etc.) from funding or studying research into those effects.

That's not actually true. The limitations set in the Dickey amendment were only regarding the use of funding to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control for the purpose of advocating gun control.

[jadell]

Dickey covers the CDC and the NIH (as of 2011). And the common interpretation of that amendment[0] is that it is unclear where the line exists between research conclusions and advocating for gun-control.

The CDC's entire purpose is to come up with mitigation plans for public health issues. If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an increase in gun violence, what conclusions would the CDC be allowed to come to, and what possible mitigation could they recommend that couldn't be viewed as advocating for gun control?

Their position is to avoid all such research entirely. The letter of the law seems to speak only to funding, but its effect is to shut down all research into the issue. Which, of course, was the intended effect from the beginning.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993413/#__sec2...

[CompanionCuuube]

> If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership alone causes an increase in gun violence

If a study finds that increased rates of gun ownership when isolated from the list of variables that they have controlled for, is linked by correlation to an increase in gun violence then why do you believe publishing that correlation is supportive of gun control?

[jadell]

It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters how the NRA, those in Congress and the administration who are anti-gun-control will spin those findings.

I strongly doubt such a conclusion would pass by unchallenged. If I had to guess, it would probably lead to letting go at least the head investigators of that study, and at most, replacing the head of the CDC.

A study with a conclusion like that was what lead to the Dickey amendment in the first place.

[CompanionCuuube]

I would be more concerned about those in Congress who are pro gun control would spin those findings to push for gun control.

It's not a problematic conclusion because a correlation isn't causation. There is a lot more to study and frankly just going direct from that kind of correlation to gun control is intellectually lazy.