關於「槍支暴力研究數量」的一點新論據

美國控槍為什麼這麼難？ - Richard Xu 的回答 - 知乎

同時，國會通過了一條法案：撥給CDC用於受傷預防和控制的經費不得用於任何支持或促進控槍的研究。（「None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.」）然而，CDC歷史上的槍支研究已經告訴我們，任何研究槍支和槍支暴力犯罪之間關係的研究，都幾乎必然會間接地支持或促進控槍。

CDC的僱員們選擇了不要自找麻煩，碰一下槍支研究這條高危黃線，他們將要付出輕至自己的研究經費重至自己的職業生涯的代價。槍支研究不斷被邊緣化，自20世紀90年代中期到現在，政府支持的槍支致死的研究數量減少了96%。這也使得控槍支持者在和NRA進行控槍辯論時處於下風。

當時依據的材料是兩篇新聞報道，恰好，最近（2017年1月3日）發表在JAMA上的一篇Research Letter提供了一個更「實證」的論據：

Funding and Published Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death

The United States has the highest rate of gun-related deaths among industrialized countries, with more than 30?000 fatalities annually. To date, research on gun violence has been limited. A 1996 congressional appropriations bill stipulated that 「none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] may be used to advocate or promote gun control.」 Similar restrictions were subsequently extended to other agencies (including the National Institutes of Health), and although the legislation does not ban gun-related research outright, it has been described as casting a pall over the research community. This study sought to determine whether funding and publication of gun violence research are disproportionately low relative to the mortality rate from this cause.

摘要中加粗的那句話部分地回應了當時評論中提出的「即使聯邦不給錢，私人自己為什麼不能出錢做這樣的研究」這一觀點。

原文的數據結論：

Gun violence had 1.6% of the funding predicted ($1.4 billionpredicted, $22 million observed) and had 4.5% of the volumeof publications predicted (38 897 predicted, 1738observed) from the regression analyses.

Reference:

Stark DE, Shah NH. Funding and Publication of Research on Gun Violence and Other Leading Causes of Death. JAMA. 2017;317(1):84-85. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.16215

推薦閱讀：