Take a look at the science of gun control

Following the shooting deaths of first graders in Newton, Connecticut, the nation has started talking about ways to curb such violence.

Last week, President Obama announced recommendations of a taskforce, headed by Vice-president Biden, that asked Congress to tighten gun laws. Among other provisions, the recommendations call for a ban on both military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines and a requirment for background checks for all gun sales.

The Associated Press reported that, seeking to circumvent at least some opposition in Congress, Obama signed 23 executive actions on January 16 that don't require lawmakers' approval, including orders to make more federal data available for background checks and to end a freeze on government research on gun violence. But he acknowledged that the steps he took on his own would have less impact than the broad measures requiring approval from Congress.

"I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe,"' the president said, referring to his vice president. "But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it."

And so a supercharged debate has begun.

One of the big problems will be to keep discussion of the issue focused on facts, causes and consequences.

Another is that there is a real lack of knowledge about causes and effects of gun violence. According to a report last week from Reuters news agency, "Congress, pushed by the gun lobby, in 1996 put restrictions on Centers for Disease Control (CDC) funding of gun research into the budget. Restrictions on other agencies were added in later years.

"The National Rifle Association (NRA), the main lobbyist for gun rights, has taken credit for the research halt. ‘These junk science studies and others like them are designed to provide ammunition for the gun control lobby by advancing the false notion that legal gun ownership is a danger to the public health instead of an inalienable right,' it said in 2011."

What could research tell us? Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (published online on December 21, 2012, Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Child Health Institute, University of Washington, said injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects.

"Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31 percent," he wrote. "Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions.

"Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence? It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research. Since Congress took this action in 1997, at least 427,000 people have died of gunshot wounds in the United States, including more than 165,000 who were victims of homicide. To put these numbers in context, during the same time period, 4,586 Americans lost their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Given this staggering loss of life, it seems like it's time to put research and reasoned discussion into action to seek straight-forward responses to gun violence.