|
Post by phalange3 on Oct 12, 2016 23:51:48 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 advocate for Congress to actively fund CDC research pertaining to gun violence, and which policies best reduce it, and shall condemn efforts by the NRA and legislators to squelch policy-informed research, particularly that related to gun violence, which could lead to policies that more effectively reduce mortality.
LEAD AUTHOR: Ryan Hassan
|
|
|
Post by marcial on Oct 19, 2016 14:03:26 GMT
Honorable cause, i support the spirit, we need more evidence base policies, but as you very well pointed out, it is a political and philosophical battle, even if the evidence shows that firearms at home pose a risk for the family, then what would be the action? Ban guns at home? That would require an amendment to the constitution, and have of the country is against doing
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Oct 19, 2016 16:26:12 GMT
Agree on principle, but the wording surely will cause some to disagree. Would work to make wording more neutral to broaden support.
|
|
|
Post by GUEST on Oct 19, 2016 16:30:51 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 18:06:57 GMT
I think our language should specifically include that we want to approach gun violence as a public health problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Hassan on Oct 21, 2016 0:49:18 GMT
Thanks for the input guys. Marcial, to respond to your question, I agree that banning guns in the home is not a reasonable expectation. We currently have a lot of evidence showing the effect of gun ownership on morbidity and mortality, but limited showing the effect of specific legislative policies on morbidity and mortality, and that's what I hope to address with this particular resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on Oct 21, 2016 23:33:43 GMT
Totally agree that more research would be needed but also agree with several comments regarding the tone and approach of the resolution itself. We could spin it in a more positive way; that the AAP encourage gun research as a broad topic. Very pressing matter, I don't know many who would disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Ashley on Oct 21, 2016 23:34:46 GMT
I strongly support the Academy advocating for firearm research and laws to protect kids. We already do this, just not on as big of a scale as members might want so we should incorporate "escalate the resources devoted to" or "prioritize firearm advocacy higher" or something because otherwise one could refute "the academy is already doing this"
|
|
|
Post by Sarah on Oct 22, 2016 0:20:43 GMT
Yes, but maybe change NRA to "lobbyist groups"?
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 22, 2016 5:08:52 GMT
Support the spirit. I agree targeting the NRA may not sit well with some so friendly resolution to take that out may be a good idea
|
|