|
Post by phalange3 on Oct 12, 2016 23:50:23 GMT
Whereas, gun violence is a major cause of death in the US, responsible for 32,279 deaths in 2014 alone (1); and
Whereas, the public and political discussion on gun violence continues to be one of philosophical and ideological theorizing, devoid of substantiated, evidence-based claims; and
Whereas, current evidence overwhelmingly suggests that private gun ownership confers no statistically significant protection against homicide, but, rather, significantly increases the chance of injury and death in the home and community; and
Whereas, evidence on gun violence, particularly on how specific policies affect mortality, is still limited, largely due to the CDC’s lack of firearm research since 1996, when the NRA lobbied Congress to pressure the CDC against conducting further firearm-related research, which the CDC has still not resumed even despite President Obama’s Executive order on 1/16/2013 for the CDC to conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it (2); therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Academy encourage legislators to design gun policy in a scientifically literate manner, such that policies are based on the best available evidence concerning the correlation between private gun ownership and mortality, and, when available, the correlation between specific policies and mortality; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Academy discourage any discussion of gun violence that is not based in fact, including unsubstantiated claims about the theoretical safety or danger of private gun ownership drawn from logical deduction rather than from available data, and be it further
LEAD AUTHOR: Ryan Hassan
|
|
|
Post by jwschreiber on Oct 16, 2016 20:26:14 GMT
Just need to cut the whereas down to three. Would maybe clarify exactly what discouraging means, do we respond to ones not based in fact?
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Oct 19, 2016 16:30:31 GMT
Can we combine this and the other resolution brought forward by this author on the same topic together?
|
|
zarah
New Member
Posts: 12
|
Post by zarah on Oct 20, 2016 17:51:18 GMT
I agree about combining this resolution with the last one. The AMA recently passed policy in June on gun violence research, and I think that could be folded into this as well, so we can say in one resolution that we 1) advocate for a public health approach to gun violence, 2) support research in the effects of gun violence and ways to mitigate those effects (and oppose any restrictions on such research), and 3) advocate for evidence-based legislation to combat the public health effects of gun violence
|
|
|
Post by Sarah on Oct 22, 2016 0:27:28 GMT
Yes
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 22, 2016 5:13:44 GMT
Would combine this with other resolution. Some of this the AAP is already doing - has backed need for CDC funding and discussing the factual basis of gun violence
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 22, 2016 15:19:38 GMT
My concern is that there is little scientific literature that is robust in America. I strongly believe this is a major topic, but I feel the academy has put a significant effort on this issue and should continue. I am not sure the value this resolution will offer to further these efforts. We should continue to push the importance of this issue and encourage our members to advocate.
|
|