|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On June 24 2016 11:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 11:07 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy. But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times. But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault. But then its not an even playing field regardless of the data. One side will point and say "government studies show this" while the other side doesn't get to speak from that position of authority regardless of how bad the data is to begin with. Trump works this a ton in his campaign by saying a hundred things and forcing people to react to him and prove him wrong, yet people will still believe his lies and lies and lies he says every day. My issue with the rule is that it dictates an outcome. So research can't be done on specific topics, like the most effective forms of background checks. Or ways to interconnect systems background and criminal record systems. The merits of smart guns. All of these are see as "promoting gun control" and are off limits to the funding.
And that would be good things to have funding for and for the department to search. But if its not an impartial agency on a subject then you can't advocate funding for it. If the democrats wanted research for it so bad they could fund-raise for it and have the research done from an agency that they set up. Wouldn't be any different then if the restriction on funding to the CDC.
|
On June 24 2016 11:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 11:09 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 11:07 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy. But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times. But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault. But then its not an even playing field regardless of the data. One side will point and say "government studies show this" while the other side doesn't get to speak from that position of authority regardless of how bad the data is to begin with. Trump works this a ton in his campaign by saying a hundred things and forcing people to react to him and prove him wrong, yet people will still believe his lies and lies and lies he says every day. My issue with the rule is that it dictates an outcome. So research can't be done on specific topics, like the most effective forms of background checks. Or ways to interconnect systems background and criminal record systems. The merits of smart guns. All of these are see as "promoting gun control" and are off limits to the funding. And that would be good things to have funding for and for the department to search. But if its not an impartial agency on a subject then you can't advocate funding for it. If the democrats wanted research for it so bad they could fund-raise for it and have the research done from an agency that they set up. Wouldn't be any different then if the restriction on funding to the CDC.
I don't believe research findings should be tailored to fit a specific political view. And it shouldn't be mandated that a specific finding or outcome shouldn't can't take place. "promoting gun control" is pretty vague and can be summed up with "things that NRA might object to."
|
Well yeah we agree. Being vague is just the smart thing to do in politics.
|
I think you don't even need to do research to understand the risk associated to unregulated firearms. You can see it just with these mass shootings. They aren't even anecdotal anymore, they're on-going.
Something needs to be done about it, but without being a hindrance to legitimate citizens owning guns.
It really boils down to legitimate owners requiring to prove the that they are trust worthy.
You can prevent an AR-15 from getting into the hands of a lunatic, he'll just buy the next firearm which is semi-automatic. You can prevent magazines with large capacities, he'll just get a lot of magazines.
The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind it. You need to make sure that the person who gets the gun can be trusted with it.
|
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be?
|
On June 24 2016 11:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 11:09 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 11:07 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:57 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:45 Sermokala wrote:On June 24 2016 10:24 Plansix wrote:On June 24 2016 10:19 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 10:15 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, I don't see it that way. Any ban of specific findings or recommendations is wrong. Research should be challenged, not restricted because it doesn't line up with one sides world view. The rider merely states the CDC cannot promote or advocate for gun control. It can make all the findings it wants, which it has recently. Yes, which makes the research worthless if it can't advocate all options or solutions. It also limits research that could have results that show gun control is effective at reducing gun violence. Or comparing our rules to rules of other nations with similar populations. I am well aware of this subject and researchers have said it limits outcomes. The article that I posted said had several experts saying just that. The restriction should not exist. But what people are telling you it that it isn't advocating all options or solutions. They're saying that in the 1990's when they instituted the restriction that it was advocating for only one side of the debate and speficialy targeted its studies to advocate for that side. It wasn't being an impartial research department that it should have been and would be really awesome to have for a functioning democracy. But being impartial means all results and recommendations should be allowed. Or the restriction should also say it can't promote gun ownership or the value of guns anyway. Or restrict all findings and only provide raw data at all times. But that isn't really how research papers work. So the limitation should be removed and guns advocates should just provide their own data or prove the findings have fault. But then its not an even playing field regardless of the data. One side will point and say "government studies show this" while the other side doesn't get to speak from that position of authority regardless of how bad the data is to begin with. Trump works this a ton in his campaign by saying a hundred things and forcing people to react to him and prove him wrong, yet people will still believe his lies and lies and lies he says every day. My issue with the rule is that it dictates an outcome. So research can't be done on specific topics, like the most effective forms of background checks. Or ways to interconnect systems background and criminal record systems. The merits of smart guns. All of these are see as "promoting gun control" and are off limits to the funding. And that would be good things to have funding for and for the department to search. But if its not an impartial agency on a subject then you can't advocate funding for it. If the democrats wanted research for it so bad they could fund-raise for it and have the research done from an agency that they set up. Wouldn't be any different then if the restriction on funding to the CDC.
Do you not see the inherent conflict of interest in a study commissioned by funds from the Democrats, and carried out by an agency that was setup by themselves. No matter how impartial they try to be, there will always be an underlying perception of bias for outsiders and skeptics.
For the process to be fair and balanced, it has to be funded by the congress, with funding that is made available to both pro and anti gun control research.
|
On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be?
Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer".
|
On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer".
That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves.
|
On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves.
They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give.
|
On June 25 2016 03:56 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves. They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give.
The CDC started their research in the 1990s with a conclusion in mind already and were building their data around said conclusion. Even the former CDC director stated that's pretty much what they were doing in the 1990s. The NRA disagreed, tried to get the CDC to have an open discussion about other statistics they might have overlooked, and the CDC didn't listen and continued being biased. That's the entire reason why the rider was put into place. Not because the NRA was looking to push their agenda and forcing a government agency to bend to their will. This was when the NRA was much more reasonable. Fast forward now, they are really just a bunch of assholes. However, they became assholes because the left started this whole nonsense.
'They have nothing to give.' Right. Ok. The liberal left has never slanted statistics or media portrayal of firearms, or spread massive amounts of misinformation about firearms at all. Never. Once. Ever. Oh wait, you mean like how the CDC led by the liberal left came up with a multitude of essentially false statistics to support their position? That even Rosenburg (former CDC director) attested to? Or how today the media continually spreads false information about firearms and firearm statistics in general?
I think that the CDC should be allowed to research into gun violence today, as it's under a different set of leaders and staff now since the 1990s. The NRA are really being a bunch of asshats about it now. However, they have every justification to have extreme suspicion of an organization that repeatedly refused to bring statistics that did not support the liberal agenda of essentially banning guns.
https://drgo.us/?p=285
You can read more here from Dr. Timothy Wheeler. He's definitely a biased source as he is an avid supporter of legal and responsible firearm usage, however he does provide detailed analysis as to why the CDC's studies in the 1990s were flawed. He's also not alone, as many objective and unbiased researchers (predominantly criminologists) at the time severely contested the CDC's studies. Congress at the time (which was controlled by republicans) were none too pleased, thus why you have the situation today. So let's not pretend the CDC weren't a bunch of assholes, because they were.
|
On June 25 2016 11:32 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 03:56 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves. They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give. The CDC started their research in the 1990s with a conclusion in mind already and were building their data around said conclusion. Even the former CDC director stated that's pretty much what they were doing in the 1990s. The NRA disagreed, tried to get the CDC to have an open discussion about other statistics they might have overlooked, and the CDC didn't listen and continued being biased. That's the entire reason why the rider was put into place. Not because the NRA was looking to push their agenda and forcing a government agency to bend to their will. This was when the NRA was much more reasonable. Fast forward now, they are really just a bunch of assholes. However, they became assholes because the left started this whole nonsense. 'They have nothing to give.' Right. Ok. The liberal left has never slanted statistics or media portrayal of firearms, or spread massive amounts of misinformation about firearms at all. Never. Once. Ever. Oh wait, you mean like how the CDC led by the liberal left came up with a multitude of essentially false statistics to support their position? That even Rosenburg (former CDC director) attested to? Or how today the media continually spreads false information about firearms and firearm statistics in general? I think that the CDC should be allowed to research into gun violence today, as it's under a different set of leaders and staff now since the 1990s. The NRA are really being a bunch of asshats about it now. However, they have every justification to have extreme suspicion of an organization that repeatedly refused to bring statistics that did not support the liberal agenda of essentially banning guns. https://drgo.us/?p=285You can read more here from Dr. Timothy Wheeler. He's definitely a biased source as he is an avid supporter of legal and responsible firearm usage, however he does provide detailed analysis as to why the CDC's studies in the 1990s were flawed. He's also not alone, as many objective and unbiased researchers (predominantly criminologists) at the time severely contested the CDC's studies. Congress at the time (which was controlled by republicans) were none too pleased, thus why you have the situation today. So let's not pretend the CDC weren't a bunch of assholes, because they were.
Im not pretending anything, We are talking about events happening in 2016 and you are appealing to stuff that happened in the 90's and then saying that its actually ok for them to do it. I dont understand why you are even bothering to make this point and come back full circle. To give me a history lesson you have been repeating for 5 pages now.
IF we agree that the NRA should stop being asshats now, what more pivoting can the Govt do to get research in except not do it ? Get results the NRA wants ?
|
On June 25 2016 12:32 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 11:32 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2016 03:56 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves. They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give. The CDC started their research in the 1990s with a conclusion in mind already and were building their data around said conclusion. Even the former CDC director stated that's pretty much what they were doing in the 1990s. The NRA disagreed, tried to get the CDC to have an open discussion about other statistics they might have overlooked, and the CDC didn't listen and continued being biased. That's the entire reason why the rider was put into place. Not because the NRA was looking to push their agenda and forcing a government agency to bend to their will. This was when the NRA was much more reasonable. Fast forward now, they are really just a bunch of assholes. However, they became assholes because the left started this whole nonsense. 'They have nothing to give.' Right. Ok. The liberal left has never slanted statistics or media portrayal of firearms, or spread massive amounts of misinformation about firearms at all. Never. Once. Ever. Oh wait, you mean like how the CDC led by the liberal left came up with a multitude of essentially false statistics to support their position? That even Rosenburg (former CDC director) attested to? Or how today the media continually spreads false information about firearms and firearm statistics in general? I think that the CDC should be allowed to research into gun violence today, as it's under a different set of leaders and staff now since the 1990s. The NRA are really being a bunch of asshats about it now. However, they have every justification to have extreme suspicion of an organization that repeatedly refused to bring statistics that did not support the liberal agenda of essentially banning guns. https://drgo.us/?p=285You can read more here from Dr. Timothy Wheeler. He's definitely a biased source as he is an avid supporter of legal and responsible firearm usage, however he does provide detailed analysis as to why the CDC's studies in the 1990s were flawed. He's also not alone, as many objective and unbiased researchers (predominantly criminologists) at the time severely contested the CDC's studies. Congress at the time (which was controlled by republicans) were none too pleased, thus why you have the situation today. So let's not pretend the CDC weren't a bunch of assholes, because they were. Im not pretending anything, We are talking about events happening in 2016 and you are appealing to stuff that happened in the 90's and then saying that its actually ok for them to do it. I dont understand why you are even bothering to make this point and come back full circle. To give me a history lesson you have been repeating for 5 pages now. IF we agree that the NRA should stop being asshats now, what more pivoting can the Govt do to get research in except not do it ? Get results the NRA wants ?
Because the NRA is not going to concede anything unless liberals do so first. They were the ones who royally fucked up big time. Welcome to politics.
|
On June 25 2016 13:02 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 12:32 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 11:32 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2016 03:56 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves. They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give. The CDC started their research in the 1990s with a conclusion in mind already and were building their data around said conclusion. Even the former CDC director stated that's pretty much what they were doing in the 1990s. The NRA disagreed, tried to get the CDC to have an open discussion about other statistics they might have overlooked, and the CDC didn't listen and continued being biased. That's the entire reason why the rider was put into place. Not because the NRA was looking to push their agenda and forcing a government agency to bend to their will. This was when the NRA was much more reasonable. Fast forward now, they are really just a bunch of assholes. However, they became assholes because the left started this whole nonsense. 'They have nothing to give.' Right. Ok. The liberal left has never slanted statistics or media portrayal of firearms, or spread massive amounts of misinformation about firearms at all. Never. Once. Ever. Oh wait, you mean like how the CDC led by the liberal left came up with a multitude of essentially false statistics to support their position? That even Rosenburg (former CDC director) attested to? Or how today the media continually spreads false information about firearms and firearm statistics in general? I think that the CDC should be allowed to research into gun violence today, as it's under a different set of leaders and staff now since the 1990s. The NRA are really being a bunch of asshats about it now. However, they have every justification to have extreme suspicion of an organization that repeatedly refused to bring statistics that did not support the liberal agenda of essentially banning guns. https://drgo.us/?p=285You can read more here from Dr. Timothy Wheeler. He's definitely a biased source as he is an avid supporter of legal and responsible firearm usage, however he does provide detailed analysis as to why the CDC's studies in the 1990s were flawed. He's also not alone, as many objective and unbiased researchers (predominantly criminologists) at the time severely contested the CDC's studies. Congress at the time (which was controlled by republicans) were none too pleased, thus why you have the situation today. So let's not pretend the CDC weren't a bunch of assholes, because they were. Im not pretending anything, We are talking about events happening in 2016 and you are appealing to stuff that happened in the 90's and then saying that its actually ok for them to do it. I dont understand why you are even bothering to make this point and come back full circle. To give me a history lesson you have been repeating for 5 pages now. IF we agree that the NRA should stop being asshats now, what more pivoting can the Govt do to get research in except not do it ? Get results the NRA wants ? Because the NRA is not going to concede anything unless liberals do so first. They were the ones who royally fucked up big time. Welcome to politics.
Yeah but you keep saying they need to concede, but you arent really saying what it is that they have to offer at this point except for offering a rigged result that would favour the NRA?
And honestly who gives a fuck ? We are going to keep politicizing common sense and just keep dealing with mass murders so you can shoot some game more efficiently. Its honestly a disgusting thought. All of this side tracking with calibre of bullet and nit picking details is pure obfuscation. And not even consider common sense regulation. You want to use your guns, sure use them but why is it such a big issue to have them regulated and registered ? As a responsible gun owner isnt that something you would want to support ?
Lets accept your story that the CDC was this evil second ammendment killer+ Show Spoiler + Wwhich I find to be bullshit btw but lets accept it anyway, Yes i studied your evidence all three parts and then looked up the quotes and everything.
Its basically quoting some people with a profile of sorts like they matter and that research was rigged. Its not if someone is doing research on something and thinks that the results will be as they expect, fine. Let them do it and point out the flaws. Don just say, I found all these info's that guns are good. And then proceed to provide no evidence. Its like the Trump answer, how you do this ? I know some experts criminologists.. they say its a social good.
Don talk about the data, show me the data, show me the validation. He was happy to fax his results that were magically ignored, but doesn't seem to keen to share them either, Why ? Because its pandering, its tailored to just reinforce the base.
We all know that Gun Ban lobby groups had no power, like ever. If they did then the stuff below would never even be close to happening.Gun Lobby groups have always been, better funded, better organized and way more biased. These articles themselves are a glaring indictment of it. The quality of the writing and the research is what one of my freshman expos students would put together the night before on 2 hours of sleep.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 25 2016 13:23 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 13:02 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2016 12:32 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 11:32 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2016 03:56 Rebs wrote:On June 25 2016 02:36 superstartran wrote:On June 24 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 24 2016 23:30 Dan HH wrote:
I don't see hordes of Americans protesting that they need a couple weeks training and to register their cars in order to drive. If that's not a major issue, why would gun control be? Because the conservative/ NRA rhetoric surrounding guns isn't "Can we at least collect some data and objectively assess issues surrounding guns, in case it really does make sense to enforce universal background checks and waiting periods, or prohibit certain guns from being so easily and openly available to civilians in the future"; it's "Obama is trying to take away all of your guns and all of your rights because he's a Muslim sympathizer". That's because the NRA actually tried to reason with the CDC before and they (as in the CDC) wouldn't listen. I believe that the NRA should stop being a bunch of assholes about it now, since there are various different reasons why we need to have a comprehensive gun study, however the liberal left and the current administration actually need to give some ground here and not be as big of assholes as the NRA themselves. They cant really give any ground if the research has not possibility of being useful unless it agrees with the NRA's pov. The left isnt the one that needs to give ground here, they have nothing to give. The CDC started their research in the 1990s with a conclusion in mind already and were building their data around said conclusion. Even the former CDC director stated that's pretty much what they were doing in the 1990s. The NRA disagreed, tried to get the CDC to have an open discussion about other statistics they might have overlooked, and the CDC didn't listen and continued being biased. That's the entire reason why the rider was put into place. Not because the NRA was looking to push their agenda and forcing a government agency to bend to their will. This was when the NRA was much more reasonable. Fast forward now, they are really just a bunch of assholes. However, they became assholes because the left started this whole nonsense. 'They have nothing to give.' Right. Ok. The liberal left has never slanted statistics or media portrayal of firearms, or spread massive amounts of misinformation about firearms at all. Never. Once. Ever. Oh wait, you mean like how the CDC led by the liberal left came up with a multitude of essentially false statistics to support their position? That even Rosenburg (former CDC director) attested to? Or how today the media continually spreads false information about firearms and firearm statistics in general? I think that the CDC should be allowed to research into gun violence today, as it's under a different set of leaders and staff now since the 1990s. The NRA are really being a bunch of asshats about it now. However, they have every justification to have extreme suspicion of an organization that repeatedly refused to bring statistics that did not support the liberal agenda of essentially banning guns. https://drgo.us/?p=285You can read more here from Dr. Timothy Wheeler. He's definitely a biased source as he is an avid supporter of legal and responsible firearm usage, however he does provide detailed analysis as to why the CDC's studies in the 1990s were flawed. He's also not alone, as many objective and unbiased researchers (predominantly criminologists) at the time severely contested the CDC's studies. Congress at the time (which was controlled by republicans) were none too pleased, thus why you have the situation today. So let's not pretend the CDC weren't a bunch of assholes, because they were. Im not pretending anything, We are talking about events happening in 2016 and you are appealing to stuff that happened in the 90's and then saying that its actually ok for them to do it. I dont understand why you are even bothering to make this point and come back full circle. To give me a history lesson you have been repeating for 5 pages now. IF we agree that the NRA should stop being asshats now, what more pivoting can the Govt do to get research in except not do it ? Get results the NRA wants ? Because the NRA is not going to concede anything unless liberals do so first. They were the ones who royally fucked up big time. Welcome to politics. Yeah but you keep saying they need to concede, but you arent really saying what it is that they have to offer at this point except for offering a rigged result that would favour the NRA? And honestly who gives a fuck ? We are going to keep politicizing common sense and just keep dealing with mass murders so you can shoot some game more efficiently. Its honestly a disgusting thought. All of this side tracking with calibre of bullet and nit picking details is pure obfuscation. And not even consider common sense regulation. You want to use your guns, sure use them but why is it such a big issue to have them regulated and registered ? As a responsible gun owner isnt that something you would want to support ? Lets accept your story that the CDC was this evil second ammendment killer + Show Spoiler + Wwhich I find to be bullshit btw but lets accept it anyway, Yes i studied your evidence all three parts and then looked up the quotes and everything.
Its basically quoting some people with a profile of sorts like they matter and that research was rigged. Its not if someone is doing research on something and thinks that the results will be as they expect, fine. Let them do it and point out the flaws. Don just say, I found all these info's that guns are good. And then proceed to provide no evidence. Its like the Trump answer, how you do this ? I know some experts criminologists.. they say its a social good.
Don talk about the data, show me the data, show me the validation. He was happy to fax his results that were magically ignored, but doesn't seem to keen to share them either, Why ? Because its pandering, its tailored to just reinforce the base.
We all know that Gun Ban lobby groups had no power, like ever. If they did then the stuff below would never even be close to happening.Gun Lobby groups have always been, better funded, better organized and way more biased. These articles themselves are a glaring indictment of it. The quality of the writing and the research is what one of my freshman expos students would put together the night before on 2 hours of sleep. how would you disagree with some of the points made here. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1076846119&feature=iv&src_vid=8LjLc1BFlFw&v=QWgJfnXJheg
1) The CDC provided little to no data to any of their claims, and any data that they provided was immediately discredited by pretty much every major criminologist (both liberal and conservative) in the country at the time. Nice try.
2) Data you say. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
Do ask for more as I have like 20+ other studies that conflict everything in this thread from the anti-gun crowd. Most well known criminologists scoff at the notion that the amount of legal firearms somehow are linked to the number of firearm related crimes. Even the recent study commissioned by the CDC in 2013-2014 states the same thing.
3) Yeah clearly the CDC never was biased.
+ Show Spoiler +"We are going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We are doing the most we can do given the political realities."
4) The link I posted to you is essentially a blog, not research. That blog is merely Dr. Wheeler's thoughts and recollections of why the rider bill was passed in the mid 90s. Plus, Dr. Wheeler and many other pro-right gun advocates did actually contest the CDC prior to this point, however they were merely told to shut the fuck up as we the CDC continues our anti-gun crusade.
5) If the liberal left wants the NRA to concede on the issue of removing the gun control ban on the CDC, they are going to have to give ground on another issue, especially since they were the ones (as in the liberal left and the CDC) who fucked up in the first place. The NRA has every right to be suspicious of the CDC in this particular case.
|
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place?
|
On June 26 2016 03:38 Rebs wrote:
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place?
Because in every single example of forced registry of firearms in other countries, it has lead to a widespread ban or extreme restriction on firearms. Every, single, time. And extensive research from criminologists who actually study crime have shown that there is no correlation between number of legal firearms and firearm crimes within a country.
All of these excuses? I literally refuted every single thing you just stated.
|
On June 26 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 03:38 Rebs wrote:
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place? Because in every single example of forced registry of firearms in other countries, it has lead to a widespread ban or extreme restriction on firearms. Every, single, time. And extensive research from criminologists who actually study crime have shown that there is no correlation between number of legal firearms and firearm crimes within a country. All of these excuses? I literally refuted every single thing you just stated.
Not really you just took one point I made and hammered 5 points to counter it.
Like the point I made about how after all these "crusades" you keep talking about there was very little affect. So why be so worried over basic research ? Or even just basic registration. This is a deadly weapon. Not a blender.
Also if you have all this research to refute the CDC, then why not let them do their research and refute them. There is so much inconsistency here. Like I said I have no problem with the number of guns, or how and where you want to shoot them even as long as its safe. But everything you keep pointing to is that people who like deadly weapons were treated unfairly at some point (which they havent even) and so therefore now they have a right to be assholes.
In other countries the results of banning fire arms are invalid because "USA so different" but the results of enforcing basic rules would mean "lolz USA not so different?"
You cant appeal to what happens in other countries as an argument if you will not accept the results of the measures in other countries. Having your gun and shooting it too.
|
On June 26 2016 03:54 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 03:45 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2016 03:38 Rebs wrote:
You provide for points to counter 1 pint.
Lets agree that the number of firearms has nothing to do with it. Lets agree that the CDC is biased.
Lets agree that the CDC fucked up in the first place.
All of this excuses all of the other points I made that you just absolutely ignored ?
As a responsible gun owner, is it not in your interest that things like gun registration and basic regulation on par with maybe like a student drivers license be put in place? Because in every single example of forced registry of firearms in other countries, it has lead to a widespread ban or extreme restriction on firearms. Every, single, time. And extensive research from criminologists who actually study crime have shown that there is no correlation between number of legal firearms and firearm crimes within a country. All of these excuses? I literally refuted every single thing you just stated. Not really you just took one point I made and hammered 5 points to counter it. Like the point I made about how after all these "crusades" you keep talking about there was very little affect. So why be so worried over basic research ? Or even just basic registration. This is a deadly weapon. Not a blender. Also if you have all this research to refute the CDC, then why not let them do their research and refute them. There is so much inconsistency here. Like I said I have no problem with the number of guns, or how and where you want to shoot them even as long as its safe. But everything you keep pointing to is that people who like deadly weapons were treated unfairly at some point (which they havent even) and so therefore now they have a right to be assholes. In other countries the results of banning fire arms are invalid because "USA so different" but the results of enforcing basic rules would mean "lolz USA not so different?" You cant appeal to what happens in other countries as an argument if you will not accept the results of the measures in other countries. Having your gun and shooting it too.
You cannot allow a government agency to have biased and non-objective research. That is a colossal waste of millions of dollars of tax payer money. That was one of the reasons why congress implemented the ban in the first place. Also, if you read the language of the rider, the CDC is free to research as much as they want about gun violence and its impact. The only thing they cannot do is advocate for gun control. That is all.
'Or even basic registration.' Because like I said, in every case of full scale nation wide registrations of firearms, they end up being taken away. Australia and the U.K. are prominent examples of this.
The example of the study I just posted is merely to show that there is no correlation between number of firearms and violent crimes committed with said firearms. You can extrapolate that based on the data. What you cannot do is take one single country (i.e. Australia which is the most popular one to use) and try and cross compare it with another country and call it a day. That's lazy, non-academic, and dishonest. Trying to say 'well ever since they enacted a ban no mass shootings have taken place' is not honest at all, considering Australia prior to said ban had significantly less crime than the United States did. Those are two totally different comparisons, and you would know that if you have a background in academia.
|
On June 24 2016 09:25 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:14 micronesia wrote:
That's not to say the NRA is the voice of reason anymore (long ago they were). Now they robocall people telling them to call their congressmen and say they oppose all new gun restrictions (by default). Both sides sicken me. I think most responsible gun owners actually don't like the NRA, however they feel that it's necessary to support them because of how much bias there is towards legitimate and responsible gun owners. Pretty much every leftist news media outlet shows massive bias against firearms, and continually utilize mass shootings as an opportunity to push their agenda through. I'd be willing to bet if the left would be willing to compromise and stop being totally unreasonable on the issue (and actually do some research) that the NRA would immediately lose many of their more moderate supporters (which actually make up the vast majority of their supporters). But until CNN, NBC, and every other leftist news media outlet, along with the entire left tries to stop trying to paint firearms as the bane of existence, you will have many responsible firearm owners who will continue to support the NRA despite the fact that I believe the NRA are a bunch of assholes. Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 09:16 Plansix wrote:
You assume my opinion isn't informed. I grew up on a farm, I have shot may guns. I am well informed up on the subject of fire arms ownership and I am not thrilled with the state of regulation of fire arms sales. You can own all the guns you want, I don't care. You sure haven't shown any kind of informed opinion on this matter. Anecdotes don't show that you're informed. Backing your arguments with statistics, facts, and research shows that you are informed.
I think you've done a pretty good job in summing up an intelligent opinion here. I sit independent on most issues, but when it comes to firearms, I can't lean anywhere else but right. Seems so odd to me that people are so emotionally weak that they need to blame an object rather than the true culprit: humans. Throughout the entirety of history people have killed people just as they do now. Lets take accountability for the fact that some humans are giant pieces of crap and see what we can do to help prevent this from happening.
|
But the real reason for the restriction on gun research is that gun advocates are terrified of any research that would show gun regulation is effective. So they ban it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
