How many members would like a firearms discussion area

Imagine pro gunners only interested in facts! Wow

 

What do they want? Is it anything that hasn't already been discussed ad infinitum here?

What gun laws do you want, and what scientific studies do you want done to support those laws?

 

Oddly enough, I'm completely unsurprised you would sneer disdainfully at mention of the Founders. People like you know you lose the argument in any honest discussion of the intent of the Constitution, so you run like scalded dogs from it, manufacturing your self-serving outrage as you go.

You REALLY need to get over yourself. Like it or not, the Constitution IS the law of the land in the United States. You can't ignore it just because you find it inconvenient, or because you want to "play dumb and forget". And a right is just that: a RIGHT. Gun haters try to squeal about regulation even though that argument has been utterly discredited, and they try to dismiss the Constitution and the Founders every chance they get.

In the end, I don't give an airborne fornication what someone like you might spout in your claims about "science". You claim "science" without knowing what the word means.

Either way, we are talking about personal liberty and Constitutional rights. We won't give those rights up, period. "They that surrender essential liberty to purchase some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety", and I will NOT surrender my liberty because a bunch of cowardly sheep don't want to take responsibility for themselves.

 

Yes, it is subject to regulation. The limits on regulation are based on Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano. The 2nd Amendment protects "bearable arms", "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-run militia" and extends those limits on regulation to the states.

 

I refer to your author. You are the one that brought him to this site. You defended the statistical results of the study over multiple posts. Why is it now an unacceptable study?

Tell me how Kellermann's study on Homicides/guns in the home matters at all with regards to gun control?

 

You look ridiculous. I have no author. I refer to ALL research. That you don't know the author's research is indicative of the problem! No wonder you whine about Kellerman, that you know has been targetted by group think sites.

 

Do you deny that you are the one who brought that study to this site?

I'll ask again: what is the value of Kellermann's study on homicide and guns in the home to gun control? What is the value of any research you bring to this site with regards to gun control?

 

You do like cretinous questions! I refer to ALL research. It just amused me that you chose an author that has also come out with research that can be used by gun nuts.

All research is valuable. I will always have contempt for gun nut post-truthism.

 

Please tell us the value of Kellermann's study with regards to gun control specifically. That's the topic of this forum.

 

When does what the AAAS and 140 medical and educational institutions want.....become “ my” wildest dreams.

 

There isn't a study. He's published numerous papers. That you don't know that informs me of your irrelevance.

 

From your previous posts, it's your position that AAAS and 140 medical and education institutions want restrictions on research for gun violence lifted. We've explained that no such restriction exists - the CDC, other government agencies and any NGO is free to study gun violence to their heart's (and budget's) content.

Now what? What do you want all this research on gun violence to find? Do you think that the results will be any different than the results of the 2003 CDC study which itself drew on fifty-one previous studies for its results?

 

Science is conducted by people and people are subject to the bias of their culture or subcultures. Just because 'Science says' does not make something true. This topic is frequently discussed in science community circles like phys.org, a website that caters to discussions among the community.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
That there is both intentional and unintentional bias in scientific research is acknowledged by most in the scientific community. Cloaking any 'truth' in the mantle of science can be misleading to those that know nothing of science. There is little research that does not generate more questions than answers... it is the fuel for the never-ending quest for understanding. One major factor in the perception of research questions and the evaluation of research results is the factor of human culture-values on the interpretation of scientific exploration. No research on gun violence, research that has been conducted for a least 100 years has reached any unassailable conclusions that lend themselves to a framework of consensus of understanding that renders any credible level of prediction. There is no remote counterpart to predictive potential of Einstein's TOR or the Standard Model of Particle Physics, both despite being predictive models are not necessarily considered to be comprehensive vehicles for understanding. I have always found it interesting how well Newtonian Gravitational formulas still work, still predict observation though superseded by those of Einstien which are better at prediction on a large scale, yet neither explain what gravity is; we still don't know. Yet, the models proposed by both Newton and Einstien still predict phenomena we observe after all these years. And, the Standard Model predicted phenomena such as the Higgs long before confirmation. Yet in both areas of study, most will acknowledge, the existing frameworks of knowledge may be someday superceeded. Not one study or even series of studies on firearms violence has achieved even a modicum of predictability across all cultures. There is a good reason for that. Anyone advocating using science at this point as a base for public policy is advocating using an incomplete understanding of the phenomena of firearm violence and is advocating policy based on guessing and wishful thinking. Does that mean research should cease? No. However, it does mean, we haven't examined all the contributing human variables..... nor the ghost (devil) in the gun that influences people to be evil.
The challenge for the left, is to change the underlying culture and values that American's equate the 2nd Amendment as an acknowledgment of their individual right to their liberty, their civil rights, and the value of the individual to the group. The antithesis is the group is more valuable than the individual and a value that says some individuals are worth more than others (there is always a trade-off).

 

I've referred to a specific Kellermann study on homicides associated with firearms in the home multiple times in this thread. That you can't infer to which study that refers to tells me you aren't really here to debate, but to troll.

This study: "
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

What use is it to gun control?

 

Yep, group think attack. He's got multiple studies. Why don't you refer to them?

 

Let's take them one at a time.
This study: "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home"
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

What use is it to gun control?

 

Please do. Refer to critique and show how that critique questions the conclusions made. Good luck!

 

You’ll be happy to know we grew up in a state where hunting and owning guns is a revered family past time. We have several guns in ours , carry frequently and have a permits like many of our friends. We all want better federal gun control laws. We also don’t care to hear about the anti science approach which republicans bought into by citizens united , practice in their politics. 9 of the last 10 recessions under your watch and one of the leading nations in gun deaths proves you can’t run away from facts.
So, don’t keep repeating same segregational talk about the corrupt alter of gun control and about the anti gun owners vs gun owners.
It’s the scientific and thoughtful approach vs ignorance. There is no segment more corrupt and dishonest then the NRA . Even 60% if their members feel more gun control measures are needed. But, the nra is a PAC not a true representative of its members.

 

https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-joins-call-federal-gun-research

For the umpteenth time, here is one reference. If theses organizations, which represent a huge portion of effected participants in dealing with gun violence want more research, it’s worthwhile. Theses are organizations which included the best and brightest minds in research, read it. I agree...we need solutions not nra “guns for everyone” tripe. Not everyone should be qualified to own any gun at any time. .

 

if you want facts, a slightly better place to play is google.scholar not casual Google. Then too, are the many science forums that are used by the scientific community such as Phys.org and many others found at https://www.scienceforums.net/. Then too, though not applicable here are those that specialize such as https://home.cern/ (You can actually participate in the search and exploration for new particles).
As for facts, or discussions about facts, before entertaining anything as a fact, it is worth examining those online discussions about epistemology and ontology in philosophy or what and how do we know something. In many of the discussions here, we are crossing into philosophical questions of what constitute facts, proof, and what is required as a base for developing public policy that can make for a more compelling argument than any existant circumstance of cultural values. People will fight (leading pun intended) over human values more than they will any resultant scientific study's conclusion.
I am fond of saying, while many discount anecdotal evidence in science, anecdotes are often the basis for asking the most interesting questions in science and can be a layman's means of the casual (not causal) testing of
many frameworks of understanding. If, in general (in general...not absolute) a theory can't be shown to explain and predict to casual experience, how valid is it? Years ago, working in the Amazon, I was told by a local not to touch a particular, colorful tree toad. I would die if I did he said. In their experience, anyone that did die. They also tipped their arrows and darts in the froth they made by agitating toads with sticks and used them for hunting. They didn't need science to explain the details of the toxins found in a toad to know the effects. The stories were responsible for asking the question, what kills people and how. As for testing, well.... So, what is the evidence, what are the facts?

 

For at least the second time, the federal government doesn't forbid anyone to study gun violence.

The NRA doesn't support a "guns for everyone" environment.

What changes to current laws do YOU want? What research results would be necessary to get there?

 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf

Page two hundred and forty five:

Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control:

Note the citation of the spending bill. What do the bolded words say? They say advocate or promote. The Center for Disease Control is free to research firearm-related matters to whatever degree it wishes, but it is forbidden from trying to advocate or promote firearm-related restrictions. Essentially it is not funding to engage in political lobbying of any sort. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Of course the nra does supportive a “guns for everyone policy”. Anything that increases sales, works for them.

The reason that research by “anyone” doesn’t work, is for profit motive to skew the results by profit makers. That’s not science. Non profit govt backed research has a history of the least bias. Johns Hopkns is not going to consciously besmirch their reputation for the sake of inaccurate data. Peer review where literally, 3400 other institutes of higher learning, are there to make their reputations by proving a JH study suspect. When the rest of the scientific community fails in that effort, concensus becones accepted.scientific and represents a body of work unassailable by any other approach.

To rely on profiteering tendencies of individuals over institutions is to accept the ideas of Susanne Somers on cancer cure over peer review opinions of the AAAS and all the accredited institutes that serve a similar function. The AAAS and the other 140 institutions hold just as valid a place on gun violence research as they do in cancer research .

What laws to I want ? I want what ever recommendations evolve from ligit scientific studies and recommendations which include what is allowable under our constitution. We already know the 2A isn’t absolute and firearms are subject to regulation by the SC. There’s plenty of room for science to make contributions.

 

Now you're deliberately lying.

I'm just saying that research, no matter how scientific, no matter who conducts it, is not sufficient in and of itself to restrict the rights of the citizenry.

You've yet to admit that the federal government does not prevent any group from studying gun violence.

Yes, we know that firearms are subject to regulation. That's been shown in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano: the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia", and extends those protections to the states. In Constitutional terms, it doesn't matter what science says.

Here's question. We've seen support here for the study that says that guns in the home increases the risk of suicide. For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. What new laws could be passed based on that study?

 

There are gaps in Google Scholar. An objective literature review would use search systems such as Science Direct. And of course we know the end result from reference to the evidence: "it's an academic conspiracy". That's a fact no less.