How many members would like a firearms discussion area

Dah..
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

The AAAS among 140 other organizations want restrictions lifted so we can apply it to research in gun violence. .

 

Then you agree with the aaas and 140 other organizations which want restrictions lifted on gun violence research ? So, you oppose the nra and agree with 60% of nra members who do as well.

 

A BS reply on many levels. You know nothing of science.
As far as the NRA, I don’t follow them in terms of their position; never have, and Most of the gun owners I know never use them as a higher authority for their opinion. Oh, all of them are Christian. So your BS regarding the NRA is nothing more than that, BS... most people don’t get their direction from the NRA and I defy you to prove otherwise...using the scientific method of course.
There are no restrictions on money for gun/violence research... that is another deliberate misleading myth perpetuated by the useful tools of the left. The myth has been discussed and debunked several times in this forum. Aside from the actual law regarding it, where do you think the CDC got it’s funding for the study done under Obama, the 2013 results of which, didn’t support his Admin’s narratives.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/

What flavor is your cool aid? Is it allowed by Christianity.

 

You’re funny. My responses are based upon the referrals from ligit scientific organizations, yours are based upon politics. And you say I know nothing of science. At least I’m willing to follow the edicts of science where you and yours are just political creatures whose sole purpose is to deceive and obfuscate to a political end. Do you actually know what an edictorial is ? It’s not peer reviewed science. It’s one person’s political opinion of a study and not the study itself. And I don’t know science ? It’s obvious by your references you avoid the science like the plague like climate change deniers do in their discussion of AGW, forgetting what the AAAS and 140 other ligit organizations advocate, including the CDC. They have been effective banned from doing long term research.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-launched-comprehensive-gun-study-15-years/story?id=39873289

Still avoiding scientific references I see ! Join your fellow AGW deniers in a world of political ignorance and deceit.

 

Yes, it’s real. Gun nuts and agw deniers have their same allies in the NRA......
and now Russia and Putin. Nice guys you depend upon for your bogus information.....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Another reference from a ligit scientific organization and not some bogus political editorial.

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx

 

That you don't believe people should have the right to defend themselves from evil is what is sad. "Evil doers" can get whatever weapons they want because they are willing to defy the law. Stripping honest people of the means to protect themselves serve no one but the criminals.

 

Point A: your statement about "every other" university is false. Point B: that you "don't care" about their blatant politicization of an unconstitutional agenda tells me all I need to know about you and your own "failings". Point C: A raving, raging ideologue like you calling anybody else "fanatics" is laughable on its face.

 

CDC is free to research gun violence. They just aren't free to research gun violence with the purpose of increasing gun control. DOJ is also free to study gun violence. Both CDC and DOJ have published reports on gun violence since 1996. NGOs are also free to study gun violence.

In your wildest dreams what would you want new studies to find, and what new gun control laws would you want to impose based on those dream findings?

 

How young ? Twelve, six, infants ? At what age did anyone’s kids magically differentiate the difference between right and wrong or understand that pointing a gun and pulling a trigger wasn’t a game any longer.

You’re obviously agaisnt scientific research. We call people who are, religious zealots. Your religion just happens to be the NRA sponsored tripe. You, like anti AGW followers, pretend you’re smarter then all the accredited institutes of higher learning in the the US whose related departments ALL support the scientific method in determining solutions to gun violence. You’re such a smarty pants. Did it come naturally or by prayer to Saint Wayne LaPierre.

 

You get your info from Faux and the nra, or the free press and the AAAS ? Which ?

 

I'd just love for the gun nuts to actually read the research! I know, I know, dream land stuff.

 

I've read the research. Tell me how it matters.

 

And Trump and the nra with their fixation on hair brained ideas like “ more guns makes us safer”, aren’t supported by billionaires.....like Putin ?
We all ready know that people in favor of gun control aren’t all anti gun. Why do you keep saying it ? You guys already contradict yourselves by making fun of democratic leaders who have weapons permits. Must make your head spin.

 

No, more like CDC, FBI, DOJ, etc.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/cdcfinalreport.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/kang.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

In your wildest dreams what would you want new studies to find, and what new gun control laws would you want to impose based on those dream findings?

 

Sorry, I can't accept that. Refer to one paper that you've read. Refer specifically to the empirical problems.

 

Well, I don't know what environment YOU grew up in, but I grew up with an attentive and supportive family who taught me right from wrong, and they started me learning how to safely coexist with firearms when I was just 4 years old. Prior to 1968 kids of any age could walk into a hardware store and buy a gun if they had the money, and we had a far safer society then; my grandfather bought his first handgun when he was 12 years old. Training kids when they're young is important; but the gun banners know that if kids learn how to be safe and responsible gun owners their authoritarian agenda is dead in the water.

You're obviously full of poached bovine excrement. Don't preach to me, son; you're the one engaged in genuflecting at the corrupt altar of gun control; someone who prefers to give up freedom and liberty in the hope of some vague promise of "safety". That's not Wayne LaPierre or the NRA; that's Benjamin Franklin who condemned that philosophy in the strongest possible terms. But I get that you don't have the intellectual integrity to honestly face this issue; it's easier for you to use non-sequitors and canned hyperbole.

 

Its respectful comment run amok!

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2014.939367?src=recsys

This one, for one. Even the author admits there's no established causal effect.

From our email exchange:

"It did ban certain features of assault weapons. It did not ban all assault weapons. Plus, given we don’t require registration of firearms, we really don’t know if the assault weapons ban reduced the number of assault weapons sold in the U.S. There’s just no way to determine that. We don’t have the data."

He didn't even understand that no weapons were actually prevented from being sold.

And, once again, this is a statistical analysis of the impact of gun control laws. There is no “mechanism.” It is a statistical analysis and it looks for statistical relationships."

Me:
What list were you using? You may have had more complete data. Regardless, the AWB did not ban any assault weapons nor did it make them more difficult to get. What exactly was the mechanism that would have had an impact on school shootings?

Using the Wiki list, the average number of dead was 1.33, the median number was 1 and the modal number of deaths was zero. Of the double digit death shootings, three occurred with just handguns, including the worst to date, Virgina Tech.


Why did you choose 1990 as your starting point? Semiautomatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber carbines have been available for civilian ownership since 1945.

Dr. Gius:

(1) The Wikipedia list you sent me, in most cases, does not identify the type of weapon used. It doesn’t say handgun, assault weapon, or whatever. So going off that list, we really don’t know how many incidents involved assault rifles.

(2) However, just going off that list, and looking at the period I examined in my study (1990-2014), there were 11 incidents in which the assailant used an assault rifle. My best guess is that there were many more but the type of weapon used was not reported.

(3) In my study, I looked at the number of fatalities and injuries that occurred due to a school shooting, not the number of incidents. In most cases, only 1 person was killed or injured. I also deleted those cases when nobody was killed or injured. There were very few cases when the total number of fatalities and injuries were greater than 10.

(4) I stand by my statement that, relatively speaking, more people are killed and injured with assault weapons in school shooting (and mass shootings), than they are in other types of killings. I believe, for the most recent year we have data, only about 300 out of a total 11,000 murders were committed using rifles.

(5) My study looks for statistical relationships.

Me:

No, it really doesn't help. Neither the federal AWB nor any of the state bans through 2014 made it difficult to get an "assault weapon". All the federal ban did was ban a few cosmetic features - fully functional AR-15s were readily available at any gun store. I'm also wondering about how often assault weapons are used in school shootings - according to the data I have, they've been used in just two in the period 1990 - 2004: Columbine and Sandy Hook, and most of the deaths at Columbine were from the two sawed off shotguns, according to autopsy reports. Given that the worst school shooting, Virginia Tech, happened with the shooter using a pair of handguns with 10 round magazines, the rate of fire of an assault weapon hasn't shown to be an issue, if the shooter has enough time.

Others:

Kellerman'ns 1993 study on guns in the home. Kellermann's study only looked at three large urban population centers, it included guns brought into the home by the assailant, and while deliberately ignoring the alcohol factor found a homicide risk of guns in the home that fell significantly behind living alone or renting, yet the results were focused on guns, which by his own data are less risky than living alone or renting.

Every single one you've posted.

 

This makes me laugh! You've chosen a researcher that has publications used by both pro-gunners and rational gun controllers.

 

It's a study that you brought to this forum: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ings-in-the-us.499599/page-12#post-1068189637

Why did you ignore my Kellermann reference?

 

When does what the AAAS and 140 medical and educational institutions want.....become “ my” wildest dreams ? Do you know what the AAAS represents ?
https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-calls-research-help-curb-gun-violence

 

First, I'm still laughing at your selection. You went for an author who is undoubtedly used by both sides (you couldn't even be bothered to read the subsequent papers?). Second, your Kellermann crap is standard anti-intellectualism. Until you can apply valid literature review methods, you will be in the camp of the cranks.

 

‘A world of political ignorance and deceit’... a good description of the left.

As I indicated in the discussion regarding Christ’s views on guns, you only know what you have been told. As for science, “At least I’m willing to follow the edicts of science”, translates to the same. Selecting studies that supports your narrative by studies that cloak research behind the supposed mantle of ‘legit’ science provides credibility only to those that lack the ability to evaluate studies on their merit as works with rigorous adherence to the scientific method. It’s not unlike accepting the word of so called religious authorities on the interpretation of the Bible. You don’t know, so you accept someone else’s word as an authority.
To suggest that the interpretation of the Bible or of science is somehow not political is hopelessly naive and ignores 2000 years of history. Scientific research is massively tainted by politics. Grants are rarely provided to those seeking answers to questions without bias. Science is largely money and dogma driven and anyone not believing that is ignorant of how money flows for research… watch the money flowing toward Global Warming research and who gets it… propose a study in support of the narrative and you will have a better chance at a grant…propose research based on a hypothesis counter to the prevailing dogma and you will be ignored. Why? (BTW, those predicting the ill effects of human caused global environment change, over population, pollution, etc. go back many decades, but only in the last 15 years ago has the topic become a mass clamor of a warning. Why?, if you can’t see the political drive behind it, you are missing the big picture of global economic and political competition that is taking place).
As noted above and many time previously throughout this forum, Congress didn’t ban funding for gun violence research, but denied funding for use in research that was designed to push gun control agendas. Despite that, the Obama Admin found the means to provide funding from the Executive’s budget to the CDC in hopes their research would support Obama’s push for gun control… it backfired.)…again another attempt at the political and financial biasing of scientific research. But, the myth, in regard to financing research on firearms violence persists…it’s the NRA that bribes politicians to block research.
As for peer review of research, translated that means those of the same cultural bias have accepted research. You certainly can’t have those critics that question methods, findings and conclusions be counted as peers. So any bias that pervades study methods and taints study results is ok, but any voices in criticism are laced either biased or not peers. When I hear of those that endorse Kellerman’s work, much funded via the anti-gun Joyce Foundation, but discount criticism from NRA published sources (peers), Kleck, and even, the CDC, I laugh…to the left, Bias is obviously unidirectional. No politics there.
The missing piece to much of research is the human value aspect towards any issue that ultimately determines public policy. All research is always viewed from the cultural lens of human values, and right now, in relation to firearms, there is a deep cultural divide that is driven by deeper differences of values of ‘American’ culture, and polarized attitudes about gun ownership being but one manifestation of that divide.
You are missing the bigger picture as many do and but a pawn in a larger game.
I was a product of the 60’s and of the Troubles in NI. I emerged highly distrustful of groupthink and elitist authority. In my field, I was associated with a team that was a counter to the prevailing authority and dogma that received research funding and made careers. We were underfunded but eventually found funding from unlikely sources and to a large degree, self-funded. It took three decades, but we eventually found undisputed evidence to our base hypotheses, made what became predicted findings, and more. Those, once opposing our views, co-opted our model, and used their positions of authority to claim credit, purposed to continue the flow of funding for their ‘new’ research. Money, Power, Prestige follow it.

 

Wow...Ben Franklin. That’s suppose to be a name dropper in modern research ?
You guys always get off track and away from science which is the ONLY PROVEN way of consistently dealing with all of man’s problems. At some point, you always go back to the 2A and you always have to play dumb and forget....the 2 a is not absolute and all firearms like ALL “ arms” are subject to regulation.
It’s like debating AGW with a denier who always goes back to he bible when cornered and at a loss.
The scientific method should have been taught in junior high. It’s not magic.

 

A simple Wiki Query would suffice for initial fact checking....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

But, it is obvious you are drinking cool-aid. What's the prevailing flavor?