Posted: Mar 08, 2018 10:36 pm
by fisherman
OlivierK wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
School shootings and widespread community gun violence are far greater in the United States than other nations. America cannot be great and realize its promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if our children are not safe from gun violence.

Although security measures are important, a focus on simply preparing for shootings is insufficient. We need a change in mindset and policy from reaction to prevention. Prevention entails more than security measures and begins long before a gunman comes to school. We need a comprehensive public health approach to gun violence that is informed by scientific evidence and free from partisan politics.

A public health approach to protecting children as well as adults from gun violence involves three levels of prevention: (1) universal approaches promoting safety and well-being for everyone; (2) practices for reducing risk and promoting protective factors for persons experiencing difficulties; and (3) interventions for individuals where violence is present or appears imminent.

...


https://curry.virginia.edu/prevent-gun-violence

There is a huge list of professional organization endorsing this approach.

This is what it will take.

I wonder if there’s enough dead kids yet.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but this is NOT what it will take. Looking a gun violence as a public heath issue, borrowing methodology from epidemiology, is something that's been done to death for decades (here's an example from last century), and despite the good sense in doing so, has achieved little. If anything different is going to happen this time, then there will have to be some other new factor in the mix. The ability of the Parkland survivors to maintain their public rage may be that thing.



I have read that the NRA has successfully prevented public money being spent on the statistical gathering of gun related deaths.

Does this negatively affect the analysis of gun crime being viewed as a public health issue?