bcl05 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 (edited) So, for all the non-NRA pro-gun people on ES: would you support funding into research (eg, CDC - though other institutions should be involved too) into why so many more Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries? Would you support legislation suggested by said research results geared to reducing gun deaths? Why or why not? Edited October 7, 2015 by bcl05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 So, for all the non-NRA pro-gun people on ES: would you support funding into research (eg, CDC - though other institutions should be involved too) into why so many more Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries? Would you support legislation suggested by said research results geared to reducing gun deaths? Why or why not? Not sure I qualify as "non-NRA pro-gun people". (Suspect that a lot of the "independents" in here will claim I'm not.) But I'll answer, anyway. (Cause you can't make me.) 1) Research? Absolutely. In fact, that's one reason why I favor mandatory gun registration: Reliable data. 2) Support recommended legislation? Depends on the legislation. I do think that things need to be balanced between making society safer, and the rights of gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 then they should start by enforcing the laws that are already on the books.. Fair enough, except that the NRA actively works to limit the capabilities of the agencies responsible for enforcement. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/atf-gun-laws-nra Hmmm...the NRA guts enforcement mechanisms for existing gun laws, pushes a ban on any research that could make their pet issue look bad (except for their handpicked "experts"), and uses political intimidation tactics to keep new laws from coming about when the problems become extremely obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 No, hacks are ax murderers. Pro gun folks are dum dums, blanks, or sociopaths. At least you're being honest. Next time you want to cry about how nothing is done, have some self reflection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 At least you're being honest. Next time you want to cry about how nothing is done, have some self reflection. I'm always honest except when I lie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Round and round we go. Anyone on the pro gun side gets labeled as a NRA hack. EVERY TIME. Actually, NRA talking points get identified as NRA talking points, every time. It really has nothing to do with you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDeep81 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Fair enough, except that the NRA actively works to limit the capabilities of the agencies responsible for enforcement. LoL. The NRA is making it hard to prosecute violent felons? I think not.. Im pretty sure what they did was push a ban on "research" that was funded by tax payer dollars, by a liberal anti gun cabinet.. (ie: don't waste tax payer dollars researching a biased agenda.. Use your own/Bloomberg money for that stuff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 LoL. The NRA is making it hard to prosecute violent felons? I think not.. Im pretty sure what they did was push a ban on "research" that was funded by tax payer dollars, by a liberal anti gun cabinet.. (ie: don't waste tax payer dollars researching a biased agenda.. Use your own/Bloomberg money for that stuff) Yeah, I'm pretty sure that this is what the NRA wants people to think. Researching the health impact of guns is inherently biased. We need to continue doing what we do now: rely on anecdotes from the pages of American Rifleman. Much more scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 LoL. The NRA is making it hard to prosecute violent felons? I think not.. Im pretty sure what they did was push a ban on "research" that was funded by tax payer dollars, by a liberal anti gun cabinet.. (ie: don't waste tax payer dollars researching a biased agenda.. Use your own/Bloomberg money for that stuff) Do you really believe this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 LoL. The NRA is making it hard to prosecute violent felons? I think not.. Im pretty sure what they did was push a ban on "research" that was funded by tax payer dollars, by a liberal anti gun cabinet.. (ie: don't waste tax payer dollars researching a biased agenda.. Use your own/Bloomberg money for that stuff) Citation needed that the CDC was/is biased. Even the legislator who spearheaded the CDC ban says he regrets it, and that studies should have been going on all this time. I doubt he would have said that if he truly felt the CDC was pushing a biased agenda. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf As for the ATF, take funding away from an organization such that it's funding level is equivalent to what it was decades ago with almost no growth for inflation, then impose restrictions on it so that the most efficient manner of doing its job is prohibited, and see what happens to how it works. It's one of the most absurd but oft-used tactics to kill agencies/projects people don't like, that is, make it almost impossible for the project to get done by slashing funding increasing restrictions and responsibilities, then complain about how badly they do their job (and then, if applicable, how much better private enterprise could do said job, see: Education). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 So, for all the non-NRA pro-gun people on ES: would you support funding into research (eg, CDC - though other institutions should be involved too) into why so many more Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries? Would you support legislation suggested by said research results geared to reducing gun deaths? Why or why not? No, because the science is settled. and the CDC needs to focus on it's mission. More Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries because they get shot more.....a natural result of our inclination to shoot people. The National Research Council found right to carry neither helps nor hurts the number of folk shot except suicides....and they choose it. If we'd shoot more that need it **** might improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Amazing how the NRA is all powerful like this and I didn't know. They must me a mix the the Freemasons and the Illuminati. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 The National Research Council found right to carry neither helps nor hurts the number of folk shot except suicides....and they choose it. Was that in the same study where the NRC found that John Lott's pro-gun research was faulty, biased and useless? Because I know about that study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 So, for all the non-NRA pro-gun people on ES: would you support funding into research (eg, CDC - though other institutions should be involved too) into why so many more Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries? Would you support legislation suggested by said research results geared to reducing gun deaths? Why or why not? yes i would support research. obama proposed a lot of research in his EU's after sandy hook. the left scoffed because they don't believe research is what is needed, and the right tried to tie it to door-to-door gun confiscation. i thought it was exactly what we needed. *shrug* support legislation? i would be highly inclined to support it, but i'm not going to blindly commit to it. you also have scotus/the constitution to deal with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Was that in the same study where the NRC found that John Lott's pro-gun research was faulty, biased and useless? Because I know about that study. This from the guy that thinks the CDC needs to study gun deaths. any study that adjusts is probably biased and faulty......simply the natural result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 This from the guy that thinks the CDC needs to study gun deaths. any study that adjusts is probably biased and faulty......simply the natural result. Why? There are good statistical approaches that have been validated over decades and applied to lots of studies not related to guns and violence that can be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Why? Why do you disagree? Good ?....or close enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) I don't know, I'm so confused at this point. I didn't bold anything.Sorry caps. Not bold. You put a point in caps and than in the very next sentence had to explain why it wasn't that important. You keep talking about an AZ law I said I was excluding because you already said they don't even require permits anymore and so it can't be measured.I like to talk about the AZ law because it is a nice clean study and result that your own link talks about having an advantage. It was also a pretty significant change at one time and not a sort of slow diluting down that gives a sort of clean break (your example to drunk driving has validity and time does matter. Note, this has happened in Georgia. Georgia has pretty lenient gun laws and recently introduced a carry any where law, but the laws have been changed slowly. If you can carry a gun ALMOST anywhere does removing the last few remaining exceptions likely going to have a significant affect? Probably not and so to see significant changes you have to look over longer periods of time, but other factors (e.g. population distributions) are also changing over that time period.)). However, if you go back and look at the post where I introduced that I also included two other links. The AZ study is the exact type of situation and study that your link suggest need to be done. But I can give you others: They looked at changes in the laws of 3 states in the 1990s. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6855&context=jclc The long short of, in general fire arm murders went up while murders by other means didn't change. Here's part of their conclusion: "The pattern of results leads us to two conclusions, one stronger than the other. The stronger conclusion is that shall issue laws do not reduce homicides, at least in large urban areas. If there were such a decrease, other events would have to push murders up strongly enough to mask it in all five areas that we studied. Such events are possible, of course, but we believe that they are extremely unlikely. The weaker conclusion is that shall issue laws raise levels of firearms murders." They looked at urban areas because there wasn't a good central resource for deaths at the time. They had to go to individual Health Depts to get data. Focusing on urban areas gave them large amounts of deaths and covers the major areas where the population is. If those areas are being affected they will be likely changes through out the state because you are affecting the population studies. Again, one of the types of studies your link suggests would be a good link indicates that loosening restriction on concealed carry permits isn't good. I don't have a side on the 'do guns increase/decrease' crime argument. You're the one with the side, and I'm just asking why key information is missing. It's missing. You don't seem to be able to explain it without changing the topic you're discussing; many of which you change to I have no disagreement with you over. And I'll ask again, why is that a key piece of information? I've already said that (known cases of)people with concealed carry permits killing people is rare. In your own posts where you tried to explain why it was important, in the very next sentence you had to start stating that there were possible confounding factors. Larry had previously given you a confound factor. I've given you more. You are asking for a piece of information you seem to already know and that nobody has suggested is anything different than what you know already is. Let me phrase it this way, given the exception and confounding factors that was already given in this thread by you in your own posts and by Larry (before my previous post) is the fact that the revoking of concealed weapons permits is low actually evidence that concealed permits result in lower crime? If other factors might make crime not go down even as concealed weapon permits being revoked is low, is that really a key factor? Why do you disagree? Good ?....or close enough? Because I actually know a good bit about statistics. Is there a difference? Are you claiming that studies are close enough are faulty? Edited October 8, 2015 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Are you claiming that studies are close enough are faulty? Close enough for what? yes I am claiming faulty and biased .....or close enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 So, for all the non-NRA pro-gun people on ES: would you support funding into research (eg, CDC - though other institutions should be involved too) into why so many more Americans die from bullet wounds than other countries? Would you support legislation suggested by said research results geared to reducing gun deaths? Why or why not? No. Enormous waste of money. "So many more Americans" die from bullet wounds because America has more guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 on the matter of studies , some assertions in this thread lead to the idea studies are not being done by govt agencies into gun deaths ect....which is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 The good guy with the gun everywhere counts, but the chances of the good guy with a gun with the training being in the right place to actually do something useful is pretty low. Hmm, I wonder if there are any math people around here who could show us some ways to increase these so called "chances" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Close enough for what? yes I am claiming faulty and biased .....or close enough Close enough to make a proper conclusion as to whether they reduce violent crime or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 on the matter of studies , some assertions in this thread lead to the idea studies are not being done by govt agencies into gun deaths ect....which is not true.How about they have been limited for an extended period of time and when they are done Republicans in Congress make a stink over it? And while it isn't 0 those actions have slowed such research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 the research at CDC and NIH has slowed as a result of banning certain agencies advocating rather than studying. but close enough eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts