Of course - no study can ever be perfect. Even "Gold standard" clinical trials for new drug therapies have holes.
That doesn't mean that applying the best quantitative and qualitative methods is pointless.
This thread started with a baseless assertion that's been parroted over and over as "fact".
Significant peer-reviewed research has been conducted - in the US and internationally - to better understand the relationship between guns and violent crime.
What does it tell us?
Dr. Charles Wellford from the University of Maryland reviewed findings and recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC) 2005 panel study and resulting report, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. He chaired the NRC panel, sharing editing responsibilities with John Pepper and Carol Petrie.
By 2005, research indicated that higher rates of household gun ownership appear to be associated with higher rates of gun suicides, illegal diversion from legitimate commerce is an important source of guns used to commit crimes and suicides, firearms are used defensively many times per day, and some types of targeted law enforcement interventions may lower gun-related crimes. Dr. Wellford reported that the panel found no credible evidence to suggest that right-to-carry laws decrease or increase crime. Also at the time of the report, there was no research to show that the more than 80 gun violence prevention programs the committee examined had any effect on children's behavior, knowledge, attitudes or beliefs about firearms.
The NRC panel found that many questions surrounding firearms and violence cannot be addressed with existing data and research. Existing research and data remain too weak to support policy development. For instance, research concerning defensive gun use is so disparate in data and methods that huge differences in results cannot be explained. The methodology necessary for unraveling causal relationships between firearms policy and violence was seldom employed or adequately developed in the research reviewed by the panel. Many policy dilemmas remained problematic at the time of the report, including the need for public authorities to carefully consider conflicting constitutional issues, facts and opinions regarding firearms and violence, and where the balance lies in the costs and benefits of private gun ownership.
Dr. Wellford reviewed report recommendations including federal government support for a systematic program of data collection and research specifically addressing firearms and violence. Current ownership data are limited and little scientific data exist on firearms markets. He suggested that the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) begins to address this problem, but only 22 states have adopted it to date, and funding support for the states continues to be an issue.
In addition to much-needed development of data and methods, further research is needed on markets, defensive gun use, right-to-carry laws, suicide and criminal justice interventions. He suggested this meeting of the working group would contribute up-to-date information to the discussion and identify important research issues, questions and gaps for consideration by the field of research on firearms and violence.
Here's a summary presentation of this review:
http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/working-group/wellford/welcome.htm
Matt
No imperfect science is infinitely more dangerous than conjecture. Conjecture can be easily dismissed science especially when shown to the who can't or won't read the underlying methodology is completely different.
The study you are asking for does not exist. Any one of those studies like this one can be dismissed as complete crap. Politics and science may nasty bed mates.
Grant could have easily been a one time disbursement grant. Since all they did was review existing data and not actually collect any. They did not run any actual studies over time so multiple disbursements over time were not required. The funding would have been approved by the Clinton administration. Post study write up and peer review can take more that a year. The study may have been FINISHED before Curious George took office.
As far as empirical science it's a basic question of goal. Will disarming everyone make the world safer. Sure absolutely except it's impossible genie is out of the bottle. Science is a tricky thing that can be made to say what every you want as long as you pick the data or use exotic regression techniques. If one used the state of NH for a firearms study it would prove that lower taxes, limited social services and basically unrestricted gun ownership reduces all crime but domestic. Can this be extrapolated to welfare enclaves in South Boston or South Bronx in NY?
