A shot at the truth about gun violence

The best ways to prevent gun-related crime have never been properly investigated. It is time for the scientific evidence to trump ideology

LOVE it or loathe it, there is no denying that the US National Rifle Association (NRA) has been stunningly successful in its efforts to fight gun control. In the 1990s, it even managed to largely shut down US government research into gun violence as a public-health problem - an unbelievable situation that still stands today.

This is why President Obama's clear instruction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to initiate research into reducing gun violence is important and necessary (see "Obama to scientists: Tell us how to calm gun violence").

But it is only the first step. Deciding whether to fund the research will be down to Congress, where the NRA's influence still holds strong.

If the NRA succeeds in blocking this attempt to bring science to bear on America's gun problem, it will be another demoralising example of the power of money over evidence-based politics.

The NRA presents itself as a civil rights group dedicated to upholding and defending the Second Amendment to the US Constitution - the one about the right to "keep and bear arms". The gun lobby interprets this as an inalienable individual right to own guns.

Although the NRA was founded on this platform, it is important to recognise that it has strong links to the firearms industry, which supplies it with millions of dollars in funding.

Viewed from this perspective, the NRA's strangling of research is utterly reprehensible. Imagine if a group associated with food manufacturers were able to curtail research on obesity, or if tobacco interests had nixed the science that tied smoking to lung cancer.

Hopefully we will now get some fresh answers on the best approaches to preventing gun violence. But if this knowledge is to be acted on, politicians and the public on both sides will need to abandon entrenched positions.

Liberal opponents of the gun lobby often assume that the answer lies in tougher restrictions on ownership - but that isn't necessarily where the biggest gains could be made.

Advocates for gun rights must accept that public-health researchers aren't the stooges of a sinister bureaucracy intent on seizing their guns. They are professionals trying to use the scientific method to save lives. They should be set free to do this work, and then listened to.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/27d339a2/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Carticle0Cmg217290A130B0A0A0A0Ea0Eshot0Eat0Ethe0Etruth0Eabout0Egun0Eviolence0Bhtml0Dcmpid0FRSS0QNSNS0Q20A120EGLOBAL0Qonline0Enews/story01.htm

new york rangers nfl mock draft 2012 norfolk island michael brockers lisa marie presley florida panthers tannehill