Evidence-Based Public Health Policy

[sevenperforce]

^{Disclaimer: I am well aware that this topic could well tend toward political squabbling, and I would very much like that not to happen. KSP players are pretty bright, so I hope that we're able to avoid this.} 

The principle of evidence-based policy is that policy changes should be guided by research and show a clear relationship between the proposed change and the desired outcome. Evidence-based policy also iterates; the results of changes are integrated back within the model to gauge their effectiveness and determine whether additional changes are warranted. Key to the process of evidence-based inquiry is the idea that results inform response and that changes are validated or invalidated by results.

Public health crises have often been approached from a position of principle: e.g., "We have principles and platforms which dictate our response to this issue" rather than "What outcomes do we want to see, and what changes can reasonably be expected to produce those outcomes?"

The US has a public health crisis involving the proliferation of high-powered firearms and their use by domestic terrorists and the mentally ill. It's a big issue right now, and there are a lot of people talking about solutions. While I recognize that this is politically-charged and we may not be able to discuss this from a scientific point of view, I'd like to see if forum-goers could have a reasoned discussion about an evidence-based approach.

To that end: what policy changes do you think should be implemented, what results do you think those changes would have, and how would you measure the success or failure of those changes?

My thoughts below, spoilered.

Spoiler

1. Raise the minimum age for purchase of any firearms to 21. This should limit the availability of firearms to younger people, and we should see a decrease in the number of accidental firearm deaths among teenagers.
2. The ATF should produce policy identifying certain ammunition types with a high potential for abuse. High-velocity, small-caliber rounds like the 5.56x45 are designed to produce massive wounds with low recoil and were created specifically for the military. Ammunition types identified by the ATF as having a high potential for abuse should require a NICS check to be purchased, and be subject to additional taxes. This should decrease the general availability of this ammunition, prevent criminals from purchasing this ammunition, and limit the availability of a would-be shooter to stockpile ammunition with impunity. We should see a decrease in the number of crimes committed with firearms chambered in these calibers.
3. Semi-automatic firearms chambered for ammunition identified by the ATF as having a high potential for abuse should be subject to a substantial additional tax. This should discourage the purchase of these firearms by the general public and inhibit access by would-be shooters. We should see a decrease in the number of these firearms recovered from crime scenes.
4. The purchase of any semi-automatic firearm should require permitting similar to that required for concealed carry, including safety training, expanded background check, and mental health evaluation. Semi-automatic firearms would be subject to additional taxation. We should see an sharp decline in the use of semiautomatic weapons in crimes, and a corresponding overall decrease in crime involving firearms generally.
5. Law enforcement officers and public health officials should be enabled to place a flag on the NICS database to identify individuals they believe to be at risk for violent crime due to mental health or other established criteria. This NICS flag would be subject to administrative review but would prevent someone with this flag from immediately passing a NICS check. We should see an increase in the number of gun sales stopped due to NICS failures.

 

[Green Baron]

Boy, let's see how long this is being suffered by the moderators :-) The discussion is imo only a political one ...

I am a European, so this doesn't apply to me and i should up. Firearms are strictly forbidden if no reason exists to carry one (hunting, sport included under heavy regulation, country dependent, but open carrying isn't allowed anywhere me thinks) and respective licenses are obtained.

Nevertheless, i'd wish me more education health wise for the public. Just a few days ago a lady reported of the wonders of homeopathy and that i shall free myself from what she called old school medicine. I have two medical doctors and two pharmacists in my family, how could i ... ?

Ok, i can't add more without getting political :-)

Edited February 26, 2018 by Green Baron

[kerbiloid]

1. Design firearms with a personal biometric lock and a photo registrator shooting the shot. RFIDed cartridges with shells.
2. Equip historically significant firearms with RFID.
3. Prohibit and confiscate any weapon except from p.1-2, with a money or exchange compensation.
4. Melt all weapons from p3 and declare them out-of-law.

Edited February 26, 2018 by kerbiloid

[Nightside]

One model to look at is the recent trend in some cities, like Portland, where I live, is to try to eliminate traffic and pedestrian deaths called Vision Zero. What is unique about the approach is that the goal is not just to make some incremental reduction to the problem but actually eliminate it. From a design perspective this allows a wider range of possible solutions.

Cars are much more complicated than guns and the infrastructure they depend costs billions of dollars, but society can imagine,  plan and build for a better outcome. I would love to see this idea get traction in the US.

Spoiler

Whether or not you think other people's lives are worth saving, is where this apparently become political. 

 

[PB666]

My, my, we must be bored to bring this topic here.

[YNM]

32 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

The principle of evidence-based policy is that policy changes should be guided by research and show a clear relationship between the proposed change and the desired outcome.

... Also known as "rational".

TBH I struggle to see what difference your theme would do. Approaches of being "rational" is the basis of every 21st century health care (mind the gap, I'm talking about general doctors/hospital/medicine here) - gone are the days of radium blanket, gone are the days of relieving mental illness by spinning people. Subsidized or unsibsidized, those who are accepted into the system will have the rational treatment - you'll receive chemotheraphy and such for your tumor, not kitten chlamydia.

Spoiler

 

Firearms don't have anything to do with health, if I'm being honest.

 

Firearm only have one thing under their name : it kills.

Be it the quagga, the aborigines or the presidents.

 

 

Now, more to the good point, I know and I realize what "gun culture" Americans actually have (no, it's not killing your human neighbors in your neighborhood). America is a very vast land with very vast wildlife. Think of Svalbard. In Svalbard, even today, carrying firearms are required when going to the wilderness. All for the polar bears, despite polar bears being a somewhat threatened species. Some American still have these thoughts, which isn't a wrong thing; but the level and extent is definitely unique given how developed the country is.

 

In other parts of the world, firearms for hunting isn't exactly something unreachable. We still have them. People in Europe would have them (though probably not in the west, central, east or south). But the firearms are very small and limited in power. Usually, the bullet are just enough for very small birds, nothing more. They're not being used to kill wild boars in one shot or something.

The biggest problem is that in your wildlife-thriving megaland, the power level and their availability extent would make everyone from everywhere else in slight disbelief.

If I would be honest, there should be a few things :

- Concealed carry. People knows when you're hunting or whether you're just being... cocky. There's no need for this, unless it's a civillian-clothed officers or something.

- Firepower. While you might want to kill a grizzly bear in Yellowstone or a deer with something that will torn them down in one shot, there's absolutely no need for civillians to have them in the human town. I propose for a safe in the national park themselves. You can carry these high-power beasts... but only in the park range. Leave them there after you've done your feast. The only firearm you'd have in town would be tiny pistols with those songbird-killing bullets, and then no concealed carry.

- Availability. Now, I have no way of proving this, but you need to step down the number of gun stores and their location. You don't need them in the middle of Manhattan; no, you don't even need them in the middle of yur vast suburbia. Maybe open them in places where your people would be happy hunting wildlife and not humanlife. Obviously, you'll need police corps with power to beat some AK-47 as they'll have problems buying rifles in town again.

- Licensing and permit. I'll say that this is clear enough, unless if we want to escalate to general ID card.

I'm not saying using firearms is entirely a bad thing given your location. But the extent and level is indeed a bit worrying.

Like, y'know.

 

 

[Snark]

2 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

what policy changes do you think should be implemented

^ This is politics, right here.  Sorry folks, gotta shut this one down.

Please understand that we're not at all criticizing the way you've stated the question.  It's reasonably laid out, carefully stated, and tries not to get into politics.

Unfortunately, the operative word here is "tries".  It's simply not physically possible to have a a discussion of gun control without it being political, in the current environment.  That's precisely why this type of discussion is off-limits in the forums-- and for the same reason that religion is.

We're really sorry about this.  Of course we welcome open debate on a variety of topics, and we'd love it if we could allow any topic to be freely discussed, here.  However, long experience has shown that there are certain topics that simply can't be here, because they never, ever end well.  It's a "this is why we can't have nice things" sort of situation.  Sorry about that. 

It's a valid topic of conversation, just not here in our forum about our little space game.  Plenty of other places around the internet to debate this sort of thing.

Anyway, thank you for your understanding.