Letter submitted to
Science magazine - a leading journal in the physical and social sciences (not just the latter), and definitely not a radical leftist publication.
We know what the problem is
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sci ... DY.twitter
America is reeling from yet another devastating spate of mass shootings. In the last 10 days, shooters have targeted a Taiwanese church in California, a grocery store in a Black neighborhood in New York, and an elementary school in Texas. Although opponents of sensible gun control—the kind that prevails throughout most of the civilized world—continue to put the spotlight on the shooters’ motivations or unstable mental states, these are cynical diversions from the one obvious truth:
The common thread in all of the country’s revolting mass shootings is the absurdly easy access to guns. The science is clear: Restrictions work, and it’s likely that even more limitations would save thousands of lives. So why not take the laws much further, as other countries have done? The alternative is painfully obvious—living with more and more senseless carnage, courtesy of the National Rifle Association and their well-funded political lackeys.
One argument used to justify continued gun ownership is that mass shootings are often the result of shooters with severe mental illness. No doubt that mental health is a factor. But the rates of mental illness in the United States are similar to those in other countries where mass shootings rarely occur. It’s access to guns that is the problem. Alan Leshner, an expert in mental health research and policy (also the former chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the publisher of Science), wrote about the fallacy of blaming gun violence on mental illness in the wake of another mass shooting tragedy in 2019.
Among Leshner’s points are the fact that less than a third of the people who commit mass shootings have a diagnosable mental disorder.
Another argument is that however strict we make gun control laws, would-be shooters would find ways to get around them. This is also misleading. As the 2017 analysis of Cook and Donohue conclusively shows, extending criminal sentences for gun use in violent crime, prohibiting gun ownership by individuals convicted of domestic violence, and restricting the concealed carry of firearms
lead to demonstrable reductions in gun violence. It’s not a stretch to assume that further restrictions would save even more lives.
[snip]
Scientists should not sit on the sidelines and watch others fight this out. More research into the public health impacts of gun ownership will provide further evidence of its deadly consequences. Science can show that gun restrictions make societies safer. Science can show that mental illness is not a determinative factor in mass shootings. And science can show that racism is measurable and leads to violence.
[snip][end]
Once again, I think a scientific consensus is being stated. We know the real problem - we know the solutions that work - only thing lacking at this point is the political will (and maybe a proper understanding of the real meaning of the 2nd amendment.)
Nobody's guns need to be taken away, and nobody (well nobody notable) is calling for banning all firearms. Rational conversations on what types of weapons and ammo should be sold, who should not be allowed to have them (red flags, permits, etc.), yes, even Scalia in Heller said those were possible.
On my list of things that should be done away with yesterday, it is ridiculous that CDC, NIH, and other agencies are in many cases prohibited from funding or conducting research on gun violence - a pervasive public health problem. Those bans need to go.
