Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.)

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) (Page 10)
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do I really have to point out how stupid this tired old argument is yet again?
You haven't been able to so far.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You haven't been able to so far.
I've done it many times and you saying I haven't without any other reasoning or justification doesn't make you right. It makes me right.

Vehicles save lives. Thousands and thousands of them every year. Guns mostly save people from other people with guns, so most of those don't count if you remove most of the guns. Simple.

So while data on RTA deaths and injuries would show that there are plenty, it wouldn't lead anyone sane to conclude that motor vehicles should be banned because there are mauve obvious benefits. Like it or not, the only argument in favour of 2A that is not clearly and utterly refuted by the data gathered in the USA and compared to other developed nations without gun rights is the one about overthrowing a dodgy government. (That one gets refuted by the fact you lot wouldn't know one if you voted for one, but thats another debate.)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 10:18 AM
 
@Everyone

Things which I think are fine:

Gathering data on gun violence
Dissemination of data on gun violence
Scientific conclusions based on gun violence data
People not agreeing with my gun policies
People who once agreed with my gun policies changing their minds


Things which I don't think are fine coming from a government agency:

We want people to think of guns like they think of cigarettes


That last one, which was the CDC position, is putting a thumb on the scale, and is why they had the moratorium placed upon them
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 12:25 PM
 
I also want to reiterate what I stated earlier.

Someone not thinking that's putting a thumb on the scale, or not caring? I'm fine with that, too. I think the point is arguable.

That's the point. That's what this is about. The claim I'm taking issue with is it isn't arguable. Someone who holds the position must have an ulterior motive.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Things which I don't think are fine coming from a government agency:

We want people to think of guns like they think of cigarettes
That's not the issue. Some people do think of guns as a net health hazard, but that has nothing to do with banning funding for scientific studies. The only analogy here would be to try and prevent scientific inquiry to make sure this does not become a validated scientific claim backed by hard data. If that is what you mean, you are implicitly conceding that you expect the outcome of the studies to be that guns are a net health hazard. Is that what you are afraid of? Sure sounds like it to me. That is the weakest argument I can think of, because it is no argument at all. It is a net gain for everyone if we can verify scientifically whether certain policies work instead of making claims based on belief and ideology.

Moreover, you are forgetting that scientific inquiry can make gun owners safer by updating best practices on how to handle guns and improve training. Your sole perspective seems to be that more inquiry will lead to a ban of guns.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
That last one, which was the CDC position, is putting a thumb on the scale, and is why they had the moratorium placed upon them
What scale are you talking about?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 12, 2017, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Everyone

Things which I think are fine:

Gathering data on gun violence
Dissemination of data on gun violence
Scientific conclusions based on gun violence data
People not agreeing with my gun policies
People who once agreed with my gun policies changing their minds


Things which I don't think are fine coming from a government agency:

We want people to think of guns like they think of cigarettes


That last one, which was the CDC position, is putting a thumb on the scale, and is why they had the moratorium placed upon them
OK, then I've been completely misreading your position in this thread so far. Sorry about that.

If the CDC also publishes data on RTA deaths, accidental deaths in the home or workplace, those amusing surveys you sometimes see that say 4 Americans per year die while trying to put their trousers on etc, then I don't see any issue in them dealing with guns from a public health aspect. They do clearly have a significant effect on public health, people are very frequently injured or killed by accidental discharges while cleaning or handling guns. I would think at the very least that data would be pertinent to public health stats.

Did the CDC make a direct comparison to cigarettes or is it just implied because the data is coming from the same source? The simple solution would be to funnel gun data through a different agency. An office for national statistics or something like that if there is such a thing. Assuming Trump hasn't already closed it down for being unprofitable.

I'm now interested to see if Badkosh thinks that firearms are comparable to cigarettes or not. If he tries to argue that guns have a benefit to society that cigarettes don't, he should really have to accept my similar dismissal of his comparison of guns with cars. If not, then he should really agree with the conclusions of the CDC no?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 07:04 AM
 
Tobacco is addictive. Some folks like my mom could never break the habit. She died in 2010 of lung and brain cancer. Guns are not an addictive. I don't compare guns to cars either. You seem to ignore the problem with personal responsibility, or don't grasp the concept. After all the liberal stance is blame everybody else. Even Hillary is doing it as she changes reasons as to why she lost.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 10:56 AM
 
Maybe the best comparison is not in the addictiveness, but in the effects they have on people surrounding them. Secondhand smoke is a thing. Kids get asthma and other ailments in a house with smoking.

Why are you still talking about Hillary?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Tobacco is addictive. Some folks like my mom could never break the habit.
Nicotine is nothing like as addictive as people think it is. Its the habit that gets you because of when and why people tend to spark up a cigarette. Strong associations are formed between a cigarette and a particular time of day, a feeling or sensation or an activity. Those things are often totally unavoidable without completely uprooting your life so its hard to break the habit.


Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
She died in 2010 of lung and brain cancer.
Sorry to hear that. My Dad was the same back in 2003.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Guns are not an addictive.
I'm not so sure about that when you look at the number of collectors, enthusiasts and the absolute mindless zealotry that often accompanies the enthusiasm, collection and advocation of gun rights. Its just that once you ignore the figures on gun deaths, the only harm is to the addicts wallet.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
I don't compare guns to cars either. You seem to ignore the problem with personal responsibility, or don't grasp the concept. After all the liberal stance is blame everybody else.
Not blaming an individual is not always the same as blaming someone else. Sometimes it really is nobody's fault. Sometimes people have addictive personalities. Alcoholism for example can have pretty strong hereditary tendencies.
As for ignoring personal responsibility, how many people whose toddlers shoot each other are getting prosecuted? Weapons are mishandled or irresponsibly stored all the time and it results in accidental shootings on a seemingly daily basis but the prosecutions are an absolute rarity. So much for responsible gun owners.
If it was really about that, then whoever bought the gun would be considered partially complicit in any crime committed with it too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Everyone

Things which I think are fine:

Gathering data on gun violence
Dissemination of data on gun violence
Scientific conclusions based on gun violence data
People not agreeing with my gun policies
People who once agreed with my gun policies changing their minds


Things which I don't think are fine coming from a government agency:

We want people to think of guns like they think of cigarettes


That last one, which was the CDC position, is putting a thumb on the scale, and is why they had the moratorium placed upon them
Ok. Now going back to the true believer thing...
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:33 PM
 
Surprise! I'm not sure what you mean.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
As for ignoring personal responsibility, how many people whose toddlers shoot each other are getting prosecuted? Weapons are mishandled or irresponsibly stored all the time and it results in accidental shootings on a seemingly daily basis but the prosecutions are an absolute rarity. So much for responsible gun owners.
If it was really about that, then whoever bought the gun would be considered partially complicit in any crime committed with it too.
Its also not as widespread as you assume. "Daily basis" ?? Where did you get that? most all gun owners are responsible and wouldn't ever want to leave a firearm out for others to use them.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Surprise! I'm not sure what you mean.
Go to the post that kicked this off. I'd link but I'm on mobile.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its also not as widespread as you assume. "Daily basis" ?? Where did you get that? most all gun owners are responsible and wouldn't ever want to leave a firearm out for others to use them.
Quick Google got me 2010 stats, which say about 1.6 accidental shootings per day, or 600 per year.

TBH, that's not bad considering there are 300 million guns in the country.

Edit: I got this wrong. It's actually deaths per day... commentary a few posts down.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 13, 2017 at 02:47 PM. )
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Quick Google got me 2010 stats, which say about 1.6 accidental shootings per day, or 600 per year.

TBH, that's not bad considering there are 300 million guns in the country.
I have to agree. But I wonder how many of those 300 million see frequent use.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 01:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Go to the post that kicked this off. I'd link but I'm on mobile.
I remember that post, I'm not sure how you're relating my post you just quoted to it.

Is a proper translation "shut-up about guns and get to my other points"?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I remember that post, I'm not sure how you're relating my post you just quoted to it.

Is a proper translation "shut-up about guns and get to my other points"?
Not exactly. I thought your saying the data was valuable tied back into it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 02:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Not exactly. I thought your saying the data was valuable tied back into it.
Here's how I've been trying to tie the post you quoted back into the original.

The original claim was the Republican ban on gun research shows ill intent.

I'm arguing if one digs deeper, it's not that simple. One can support the position without the ill intent.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have to agree. But I wonder how many of those 300 million see frequent use.
Each and every one is being used to insure your freedom... right now.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I have to agree. But I wonder how many of those 300 million see frequent use.
You know what? My bad... that was accidental deaths.

The military casualty:kill ratio of 10:1 seems to apply well in these circumstances, so I'll guess 6,000 shootings per year, 16ish per day.

Seems more like it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 10:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its also not as widespread as you assume. "Daily basis" ?? Where did you get that? most all gun owners are responsible and wouldn't ever want to leave a firearm out for others to use them.
Subego is quoting 1.6 accidental deaths per day. I'm guessing non-fatal injuries are higher. Then theres near misses where no-one gets hurt all. But no-one is allowed to record, study or publish this information, so we don't have the reliable data we'd like.

The thing about being a responsible gun owner is that you are one until you aren't. Its clear some people could use more guidance as to what is and isn't responsible.

And while its easy to look at an incident where a child picks up an improperly stored weapon and shoots someone with it, it should be noted that if a child can pick it up from there, maybe an opportunist thief can too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 11:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
But no-one is allowed to record, study or publish this information
This isn't even remotely true.

Even the single agency under discussion was never banned from collecting the data.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Did the CDC make a direct comparison to cigarettes or is it just implied because the data is coming from the same source? The simple solution would be to funnel gun data through a different agency.
The exact quote is:

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned."

All other agencies are allowed to study the phenomenon. It's only the CDC which was banned.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 13, 2017, 11:31 PM
 
@Everybody,

Not ignoring things, just super busy and have been addressing what was possible.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 12:18 AM
 
Realistically though, won't the gun lobby squash any other government attempts to release these figures?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The only analogy here would be to try and prevent scientific inquiry to make sure this does not become a validated scientific claim backed by hard data.
If this were a hard science question I'd agree 100%, but it's a sociology question. It's pretend science.

Let's say the question was whether our justice system lets too many people go free.

The data is important, but not like in hard science where it actually provides the answer to the question. Even with all the data in the world, which subset matters is going to come down to personal (and often very political) feelings.

It's the same with gun violence. At least with the levels we have now.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If this were a hard science question I'd agree 100%, but it's a sociology question. It's pretend science. [...] The data is important, but not like in hard science where it actually provides the answer to the question. Even with all the data in the world, which subset matters is going to come down to personal (and often very political) feelings.
No, that's a misconception on your part, science is not what you think science to be. Science does not have to provide an answer to a question, it suffices if you can falsify or verify a hypothesis. Many societal questions are statistical in nature, and I reckon many scientific inquiries on that topic will be about statistics. And of course, if you misunderstand science in this way, of course, it is all the more clear why you are afraid of scientific studies in the field of firearms. In your mind, science wouldn't just tell you what is, but how it should be.

So you can verify whether, say, keeping a gun in your home for self defense will make it less likely for you to be injured or die in a crime. Or you can test the efficacy of a new program to integrate early parolees into society. Or you could verify or falsify the hypothesis “Gun bans and gun free zones DO NOT WORK”. This isn't “pretend science” or bad science.

The other misconception that you have about science is that scientists form a monolithic block with a political agenda. The accusation of bias by non-scientists usually comes into play when the outcome of the scientific studies clashes with what this particular group of non-scientists believes in. Such as when non-scientists denounce climate scientists as fraudulent, because 95+ % have arrived at the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change exists. And since believe that anthropogenic climate change does/doesn't exist is strongly correlated with political party affiliation, non-scientists jump to conclusions here.

Curbing scientific inquiry for political reasons means imposing political bias on science by force. That is unacceptable. Science does not have a political agenda, it is a tool that has improved our lives and allowed us to go from hunters and gatherers to people living in huge cities with smartphones. Gun policies — just like a lot of other fields of politics — can be and should be investigated scientifically.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 02:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
So you can verify whether, say, keeping a gun in your home for self defense will make it less likely for you to be injured or die in a crime. Or you can test the efficacy of a new program to integrate early parolees into society. Or you could verify or falsify the hypothesis “Gun bans and gun free zones DO NOT WORK”. This isn't “pretend science” or bad science.
These are all things wherein the answer to the question is provided by the data... which is exactly how I described "real science". I don't think my post was understood.

My comment was made in the context of what came before it. The part which was removed from the quote. The question of whether our justice system lets too many guilty people go free.

What "too many" even means is an opinion. A political one. Is there not a clear difference here between this and climate science?
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 02:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These are all things wherein the answer to the question is provided by the data... which is exactly how I described "real science". I don't think my post was understood.

My comment was made in the context of what came before it. The part which was removed from the quote. The question of whether our justice system lets too many guilty people go free.
I did make reference to that bit in my reply, I don't think I misunderstood your post. (I wrote “Or you can test the efficacy of a new program to integrate early parolees into society.”) You labeled sociology as a pseudo science. While I am a physicist and mathematician, I have two close friends who are sociologists, and such a blanket statement is inaccurate. Sociologists (at least where I am from) are trained in statistics, and one standard type of thesis is to design a questionnaire, have it answered by the target group and analyze the results.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What "too many" even means is an opinion. A political one. Is there not a clear difference here between this and climate science?
No, there isn't a difference, both are science. All of science is based on a common method of inquiry. Regarding the specific question you ask on the justice system: in order for that to be a testable hypothesis, you would have to be more specific. And you do have freedom in choosing criteria, and different criteria may lead to different, perhaps seemingly contradictory answers. A question isn't an opinion, ascribing significance to that question (as well as the answer) might be. Hence, science is just a tool, it doesn't necessarily determine the outcome.

Moreover, science isn't about a single study, a single paper or a single book that analyzes all aspects of a problem and gives all the answers. Even if someone asks the wrong question or does a bad study, that doesn't taint the field or calls all previous research into question. The answer to that is to do more science.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 11:51 AM
 
I called it "pretend" science because I find humor in hard science snobbery.

Hard science snobbery exists because there is a fundamental difference between hard science and soft science.

That's why there are labels. There is a distinction.

"They're both science" is the equivalent to saying whales and mice are the same because they're both mammals.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 14, 2017, 10:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I called it "pretend" science because I find humor in hard science snobbery.

Hard science snobbery exists because there is a fundamental difference between hard science and soft science.

That's why there are labels. There is a distinction.

"They're both science" is the equivalent to saying whales and mice are the same because they're both mammals.
Nothing you wrote here is an argument for why the US government categorically should not fund studies concerning firearms. You try to flesh out a difference between hard and soft science, but you fail to make an argument as to why this relevant here. Humans and chimps share 98 % of their DNA, and in some situations those 2 % are key (e. g. when you want to find your next partner) while in others it doesn't matter at all and even 90 % would be more than enough. The relevant difference between what you call hard and soft sciences is the ability to create first principles theories that quantitatively predict the outcome.

There are, however, systems in physics for which no such first-prinpciples theory exists yet (granular matter such as sand and cornflakes is one). That doesn't mean they are removed from rigorous scientific study. Once a system exceeds a certain complexity, first-principles theories or even effective theories are rendered useless, because they lack any predictive power. That holds for many situations in chemistry, engineering and biology as well. None of this means that such complex systems are beyond the grasp of rigorous scientific study.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 10:50 AM
 
We're talking about one government organization, the CDC.

They stated they want to make people view guns the same way people view cigarettes.

The problem with this assertion is what constitutes an unacceptable level of gun violence doesn't have an objective answer.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We're talking about one government organization, the CDC.

They stated they want to make people view guns the same way people view cigarettes.

The problem with this assertion is what constitutes an unacceptable level of gun violence doesn't have an objective answer.

Yet you still have freedom to smoke. Maybe they meant you should have a right to own guns but they should be subject to more legislative restrictions the way cigarettes are because owning one doesn't just affect the owner?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 04:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yet you still have freedom to smoke. Maybe they meant you should have a right to own guns but they should be subject to more legislative restrictions the way cigarettes are because owning one doesn't just affect the owner?
Let me try this from the top-down again, and hopefully make my point clearer.

At the core of the gun debate is a philosophical question. Does an armed populace act as check against tyranny?

The reason it's philosophical is because there isn't enough data to show conclusively one way or another. Each side has a set of theories, each side's theories have merit.

The CDC didn't even acknowledge the philosophical question exists.

I'm not even setting the bar at a fair hearing, just a hearing.

Being unable to swing even that, is not properly serving the country.

To my knowledge, there is no such philosophical debate underlying smoking, which people used not to know killed you, unlike guns, where reliable killing is their function, and yet they still made it into the Constitution.

The following is best said in a thick Russian accent.

"Safety? Is not safe. Is gun."

If you've ever seen the pieces of shit the Founding Fathers were dealing with, it's clear they'd be familiar with the concept.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We're talking about one government organization, the CDC.

They stated they want to make people view guns the same way people view cigarettes.
That's a gross misunderstanding. The CDC's job is to study the health impact on society of everything from diseases to cars and cigarettes; it is not part of their job description to balance all this with, say, the contributions of the tobacco industry to the economy. Guns also have a health impact, and wanting to study that is reasonable.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The problem with this assertion is what constitutes an unacceptable level of gun violence doesn't have an objective answer.
First of all, that isn't the CDC's assertion, that's what you read into it. And secondly, you don't need to decide what “acceptable” levels are, all you need to do is compare the US to other countries or even just different states within the US.

When reading your post, your arguments seem to center around the fear you scientifically expect certain basic pro gun arguments to be proven false. And that being able to use hard facts in the discussion may lead to more restrictions on guns. Neither is legitimate, society should properly weigh the risks and benefits, and could still decide to do it anyway.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 07:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
At the core of the gun debate is a philosophical question. Does an armed populace act as check against tyranny?
That may be the core to you, but that's just another aspect of the debate.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The CDC didn't even acknowledge the philosophical question exists.
It is not the CDC's job to look at the issue holistically, their job is to look at just one facet the health impact. It is decidedly not their job to enter into a philosophical discussion, that wouldn't be very scientific. They should be able to measure the health impact that guns have on society, who is at risk the most and study which set of rules is more effective than another to mitigate some of the health risks. If you talk to firemen, they will tell you about fires and fire hazards.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason it's philosophical is because there isn't enough data to show conclusively one way or another. Each side has a set of theories, each side's theories have merit.
That's a fundamental error: a philosophy isn't a theory in the scientific sense, and claims about merits of theories should be decided on the basis of evidence. You claim that you can't scientifically decide whether guns help prevent tyranny, and I think this is fair. The point, though, is that some of the other arguments which are used to argue for more restrictions are not mere philosophical questions, but could be investigated scientifically and quantified.

It really seems to boil down that you feel, pardon the pun, outgunned in the debate, a wishy-washy philosophical claim with equivocal or no evidence on the one side versus stone cold scientific facts on the other, and you'd therefore lose the argument. I don't think this is the only stance that you can take as someone who sees a purpose behind allowing the populace to own guns.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you've ever seen the pieces of shit the Founding Fathers were dealing with, it's clear they'd be familiar with the concept.
The Founding Father's constitution was an attempt to solve the problems of the past using the technology of the past based on the values of the past. And while it is a milestone, nobody today would design a constitution in the same manner even if you want to enshrine the same values in it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's a gross misunderstanding. The CDC's job is to study the health impact on society of everything from diseases to cars and cigarettes; it is not part of their job description to balance all this with, say, the contributions of the tobacco industry to the economy. Guns also have a health impact, and wanting to study that is reasonable.
How is this a gross misunderstanding?

It's almost a direct quote.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
How is this a gross misunderstanding?

It's almost a direct quote.
The misunderstanding is that you think the CDC either should take philophical issues into account or butt out altogether. There is no requirement to do both, and just studying health impacts by itself is both useful and precisely within the job description of the CDC. The CDC should not and need not consider other issues (especially philosophical ones) in their scientific evaluations, just like it isn't the EPA's job to worry about the impact currency fluctuations will have on the economy or the ATF's job to fret about whether a particular beetle should be a protected species.

It is normal that separate aspects of an issue are investigated by separate entities, and it is also normal that their evaluations yield different results. An environmental study of, say, fracking may lead to different outcomes than an economic study which focuses on energy independence. That doesn't deligitimize either study or either agency or body. Eventually politicians will have to weigh things in a cost-benefit analysis. From that perspective it is natural that the CDC studies guns from within the same framework it uses for other societal health risks, including motor vehicle accidents and smoking. That is not a prejudgment nor an ideological position.

Plus, you haven't responded as to whether your opposition to federally funded scientific inquiry on guns is that you feel inadequately equipped if your main arguments are philosophical that according to you are supported by either no or at best equivocal evidence? Absence of studies doesn't make the underlying facts disappear.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let me try this from the top-down again, and hopefully make my point clearer.

At the core of the gun debate is a philosophical question. Does an armed populace act as check against tyranny?

It could also be, is this check on Tyranny worth the cost in innocent, non-complicit human life?


Originally Posted by subego View Post
The reason it's philosophical is because there isn't enough data to show conclusively one way or another. Each side has a set of theories, each side's theories have merit.
All the more reason to do studies. And theories only really have {scientific} merit if they have data to support them.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The CDC didn't even acknowledge the philosophical question exists.

I'm not even setting the bar at a fair hearing, just a hearing.

Being unable to swing even that, is not properly serving the country.
As pointed out above, the question itself is up for some debate. Also wouldn't the CDC's version of the question be more like:

"Is there anything we can do reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries caused by civilian ownership/misuse/mishandling of firearms?"

And may include the caveat:

"Is there enough deaths and injuries to warrant any action at all?"

The biggest problem around the gun debate is the 100% obstinance approach of the gun lobby when it comes to any kind of new restrictions, registrations or regulations whatsoever. You don't have to ban all guns to make a different. There are plenty of other options.

Assuming the rate of death and injury is too high (which most scientists I suspect would define as it being relatively simple to reduce it), you start by measuring the extent of the problem, then you look at the specific mechanisms involved in order to generate the most effective measure to implement against it. If more people die cleaning weapons than from grabbing them during arguments, then you look first at how you can make the cleaning process safer etc.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
To my knowledge, there is no such philosophical debate underlying smoking, which people used not to know killed you, unlike guns, where reliable killing is their function, and yet they still made it into the Constitution.
True but do you honestly think the founding fathers wouldn't be slightly taken aback (if not totally appalled) at the notion of toddlers getting hold of a loaded musket? Or a five year old being left unsupervised with one? We are talking about intelligent, educated men in a world that likely didn't anticipate that they would ever have to legislate for common sense the way we have to these days.
If we're honest some probably wouldn't be that thrilled at the notion of women firing guns let alone owning them would they?

Equally if they thought there was any chance of smoking being restricted in public knowing only what they knew then about tobacco, theres a reasonable chance they might have put something about it in the constitution. Probably booze as well for that matter.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 10:24 PM
 
I think the answer rather than stopping the CDC running studies would be to encourage other agencies to run more too. The ATF would be an obvious choice.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 02:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Plus, you haven't responded as to whether your opposition to federally funded scientific inquiry on guns...
Because I don't oppose it.

Here are some examples of studies I want.

How much more likely is there to be injury or death in a household with a gun? How much more likely for a child or toddler? How much more likely is it to be used in a domestic dispute? How much more likely is it to make an attempted suicide a successful one? This in addition to studies on homicide and other crimes.

If there's a study I'm supposed to be afraid of, please suggest it.

What I'm objecting to is the solution the CDC intended to pursue: we will lower gun violence by making society value guns less.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm objecting to is the solution the CDC intended to pursue: we will lower gun violence by making society value guns less.
I don't understand why you would object to this part either. Doesn't Canada have closer gun ownership stats to the US than most other developed nations? Yet their gun death rates are lower.

People who defend gun ownership rationally (and many who are totally irrational) will tell you a gun is a tool. If there was a country where a certain other tool was as culturally integrated as guns in the US, it would be a fair bet the tool in question would be involved in more crimes and accidents due to their prevalence in peoples minds as well as their pockets, tool belts or nightstands.
Its not a great example for other reasons but I bet knife crime is high in Yemen where all men over a certain age wear big ass knives everywhere they go.
It would do America no harm at all to be less obsessed about guns. They need to be respected more than they need to be loved or enjoyed and thats a huge part of the problem.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Let's not lose the semantic forest for the trees.

I'm fine with using respect as the term.

Is there no legitimate beef with "guns should be respected like cigarettes"?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think the answer rather than stopping the CDC running studies would be to encourage other agencies to run more too. The ATF would be an obvious choice.
I fully admit it was an extreme response, and going back to the beginning, I stated even I am not so convinced of my position I can casually dismiss an opposing viewpoint.

All along my claim has only been it's arguable.

This is opposed to the initial claim it is not. I hold this position because I put party over country, or I'm Mr. big ****ing scared-y cat.


As an aside, their portfolio doesn't cover everything, the FBI is a good source for anything crime related when it comes to guns.

And, IIUC, the ban on the CDC was lifted anyway. I don't object to this. They were sufficiently chastened.
( Last edited by subego; Apr 16, 2017 at 01:43 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
It could also be, is this check on Tyranny worth the cost in innocent, non-complicit human life?
This is a fair way to phrase the question.

Here's why I used a different phrasing.

Most people I discuss the "check on tyranny" argument believe the argument carries little to no weight.

The way the question is phrased above implies the argument carries weight, the question is instead how much.

I'm honestly trying to respect the people who believe it has little to no weight by not insisting it does.

This is in no way meant to downplay or dismiss the loss of innocent life my policies cause. That blood is on my hands, and I'm not going to make myself look better by washing it off.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 05:01 PM
 
Your phrasing of the question is actually to me a different question altogether. Its certainly valid to ask it, but its not something you want to test.

It now occurs that there are three questions, not just two:

Does it work? i.e. Is it really a check on government?
Will it ever be used? Given the hatred against Obama and now Trump, what will it take for enough Americans to actually invoke the check? Is it ever genuinely likely to happen?
Is it worth it?

Two of these can't even really be guessed at by simply gathering data but the doubt on them has to carry forward some extra weight onto number three where I believe its already been established that more Americans have probably died already from domestic civilian gun incidents than would likely die during any uprising.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 16, 2017, 06:15 PM
 
I put forth the first question because it seems the most obvious thing to put first on the "flowchart". If it doesn't work, then the chart gets exited.

I agree about the extra weight, however I'm not so sure about how established the answer is, especially if one takes into account if things have gotten bad enough to precipitate a civilian uprising, our foreign policy would be causing notable quantities of non-American death.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2017, 12:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Because I don't oppose it.
Now I'm confused, that is in contradiction to what you wrote in the beginning of the discussion:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I more or less stand behind the restrictions the Republicans placed on studying gun violence.
As it stands now the CDC cannot perform any studies on guns. That has a very long tradition, e. g. in 1996 the CDC's budget was cut by the amount spent on gun-related research. Thus, the CDC has stopped researching this topic on any appreciable scale due to GOP-led acts of Congress.

Now all of a sudden you claim you would be in favor or research. Have you changed your mind?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I'm objecting to is the solution the CDC intended to pursue: we will lower gun violence by making society value guns less.
Again, you are not only attributing an opinion and an “agenda” to the CDC (as an organization) on guns. The CDC consists of many people, and all of these narratives that try to ascribe opinions and almost conspiratorial “agendas” to them are wrongheaded, cooky and has no bearing in reality.

Moreover, you are advocating to suppress facts which do not mesh with your philosophical outlook on guns. That is a dangerous attitude to have not just in the present context, but in general. If statistically speaking having a gun at home makes you less safe, then this is a fact that especially a pro gun person should grapple with. And it doesn't even mean that people should not have the right to own guns or that certain people could benefit from having a gun at home for protection.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2017, 11:11 AM
 
I attribute the opinion to them because that's what person in charge of the sub-agency doing the research said to the New York Times.

"We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol, cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly and banned."

That's not science.

I don't hold the entirety of the federal government responsible, as evidenced by me not complaining about the FBI and the NIH doing gun research.

I'm aware of the conflict of interest in my position. All I can point to in this regard is my record in how I conduct the debate. I go out of my way to acknowledge my policies exact payment in innocent lives.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2017, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Everybody,

Not ignoring things, just super busy and have been addressing what was possible.
Dat Trump Boom
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2