Let's research gun violence.

[Direckshun]

I've said this in a couple other threads, but I don't believe that gun control is going to get any traction in Congress. Some Democrats will push for it, some other Republicans will table it, some pro-gun control folks like myself will cry foul, and yet another Congress will pass without any gun control measures seeing the light of day.

But here's one thing that maybe we can start doing: better educate ourselves on gun violence, so we can stop stabbing in the dark as to what we can better do to mitigate it.

The problem is that for a couple decades now, the government has not been able to produce any information on gun violence because the NRA has been threatening war if Congress failed to choke off all funding for gun-related research.

The CDC and NIH used to conduct research for decades, but around the time of the late 90s, the NRA became so powerful it was able to prevent these agencies from granting funds to researchers on those topics. McClatchy DC:

The CDC and NIH award billions in grants. They fund research into cancer, brain injury, tobacco use, obesity, AIDS, abortion, hearing loss, allergies, infectious diseases, back pain and virtually everything else related to human health. But gun violence is the one area that carries that specific language. The effect has been to limit federal funding into research that could be used to shape policy.

This is irresponsible. We pass hundreds of gun-related laws across the country every few years. Like all laws, we should be able to research the impact of the laws we pass, so we can make decisions based on more than pure ideology.

Anyway, there's a ton of stories on this, but here's a really good one from last year in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...anted=all&_r=0

N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “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.”

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

“They had a near-death experience,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.

“For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.”

Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.

The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years. (Institute officials said they hoped to reinvigorate financing in this area.)

Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.

After the centers’ clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to “curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.”

Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the “C.D.C. meter.” After he threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, Mr. Teret said, the officials backed down and gave him “a little bit more leeway.”

C.D.C. financing for research on gun violence has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms are only a component.

The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the C.D.C. becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agency’s good graces.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he said he had now shifted his attention to other issues.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hate to break it to you, buddy. But if you introduce standards that some people could conceivably fail to meet, that's a ban on gun ownership.

You're in the same boat as me, compadre. We're just arguing degrees.

Standards like the ones we already have in place?(mental health, violent felons, etc) Yes, I am fine with those. I have never once said I am not. I am also fine with current restrictions on automatic weapons.. that's a gun ban too!!!

EVERYONE here is arguing degrees unless you have a nut who want ALL guns banned or one who wants ALL guns legal.

And don;t call me "buddy", pal.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You didn't provide evidence you ignorant twit. You provided stats

Explain how statistics are not evidence.

Or are you just saying things because it's fun to say things.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Standards like the ones we already have in place?(mental health, violent felons, etc) Yes, I am fine with those. I have never once said I am not. I am also fine with current restrictions on automatic weapons.. that's a gun ban too!!!

EVERYONE here is arguing degrees unless you have a nut who want ALL guns banned or one who wants ALL guns legal.

And don;t call me "buddy", pal.

You want standards for ownership to be higher than they are now, do you not?

Certainly seems to be what you suggested:

But I do think we can and should get better training/certification standards for CARRY laws.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Explain how statistics are not evidence.

Or are you just saying things because it's fun to say things.

As someone who hasn't read the thread, is bored and wants to post, what I believe Austin is saying is that statistics can be manipulated fairly easily and aren't entirely representative of the truth. As an example, one might see Matt Cassel's 27-7 td/int ratio and think "Golly, that's not half bad. You might be on to someting there." However, when evaluating more closely, one can see that that simply isn't even remotely ****ing close to being the case.

I'm not saying that's what happened here but statistics are consistently manipulated to appear better than what they actually are.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Sorter

As someone who hasn't read the thread, is bored and wants to post, what I believe Austin is saying is that statistics can be manipulated fairly easily and aren't entirely representative of the truth. As an example, one might see Matt Cassel's 27-7 td/int ratio and think "Golly, that's not half bad. You might be on to someting there." However, when evaluating more closely, one can see that that simply isn't even remotely ****ing close to being the case.

I'm not saying that's what happened here but statistics are consistently manipulated to appear better than what they actually are.

Statistics are evidence. Shit statistics are also evidence, albeit shit evidence. AC was talking out of his ass.

Now if you want to argue that the statistics I presented are shit statistics, go for it. But you're going to have to do better than an unverifiable conversation you had with some idiot in Europe. BEP would be a master debater on this forum if that was remotely acceptable. Christ.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Explain what you mean, here.

The replacement rate is the rate at which a homicide would occur anyway just using a different weapon.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

About 1 to 2%.

1 to 2% of 300 MILLION Americans died last year due to mass shooting sprees? WOW it really is an epidemic.. how the **** did I miss that!

Oh, wait... did you instead mean, 1-2% of the .0037% so.. somewhere around
.00000053% ?

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Yes, we have a mass shooting epidemic. On Christmas Eve, a guy in New York called 911 to report a fire in his home, then shot several firemen as they stormed into his house.

When the NRA via Wayne LaPierre was speaking a few days ago on "everything but guns is to blame for shootings" speech, a guy was walking the highway in Pennsylvania and shooting at cars as they drove by.

Slate has a running total of all mass shooting victims since Newtown. 160 people have died, as of me posting right now.

Click through. Enjoy. And tell me this isn't an epidemic we have on our hands.

Ok, now if I cut and paste links to every single news article and blog post from around America about what happened on those days that was NOT a mass shooting... will you admit that maybe just maybe you are blowing it out of proportion just like a good little media consumer is expected to.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Statistics are evidence. Shit statistics are also evidence, albeit shit evidence. AC was talking out of his ass.

Now if you want to argue that the statistics I presented are shit statistics, go for it. But you're going to have to do better than an unverifiable conversation you had with some idiot in Europe. BEP would be a master debater on this forum if that was remotely acceptable. Christ.

Well yeah stats are evidence. Stats can also be manipulated. FWIW, I really have no idea what the **** is going on in this thread and am inebriated, so I'm going to let the grown ups play this one out.

*eats Schlitz beer*

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Explain how statistics are not evidence.

Or are you just saying things because it's fun to say things.

if that was my quote I certainly would be in a pickle.. except that wasn't what I said. I said you provided "stats from vastly dissimilar cultures" which makes them not viable "evidence" at all in this argument.

Purposely misquote me again and your gone. Got it?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You want standards for ownership to be higher than they are now, do you not?

Certainly seems to be what you suggested:

No, I am fine with current standards for ownership, except I could see us streamlining the system and closing loopholes... the standards for ownership themselves are fine as far as I am concerned.

I do however think we need better standards for CARRY certs.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

if that was my quote I certainly would be in a pickle.. except that wasn't what I said. I said you provided "stats from vastly dissimilar cultures" which makes them not viable "evidence" at all in this argument.

Purposely misquote me again and your gone. Got it?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The replacement rate is the rate at which a homicide would occur anyway just using a different weapon.

Fine, let's do that shit.

Some idiot went crazy in China and stabbed 22 children. I believe every single one of them lived, although one is in traction I believe.

I will take requiring a crazy person to use a less dangerous weapon every day of the week. Every day of the week.

Anything to require more effort, more time, having to reload faster, having to reload sooner, having to jump through more hoops, having to know more, having to expose himself more... Anything to make it harder to kill people.

Originally Posted by AustinChief

1 to 2% of 300 MILLION Americans died last year due to mass shooting sprees? WOW it really is an epidemic.. how the **** did I miss that!

Oh, wait... did you instead mean, 1-2% of the .0037% so.. somewhere around
.00000076% ?

You've avoided, multiple times now in this thread, to admit what you'd need to see before you can admit we have a gun homicide epidemic.

And we both know why. It's a lot easier to move the goalposts in the face of mounting evidence when you don't have to pre-establish a standard.

And as per your usual course, it's vacuous.

So let's put an end to that silly bullshit and put you on the grid: we kill people 12 times more with guns than the rest of our Western brethren. That's not an epidemic to you?

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Ok, now if I cut and paste links to every single news article and blog post from around America about what happened on those days that was NOT a mass shooting... will you admit that maybe just maybe you are blowing it out of proportion just like a good little media consumer is expected to.

I'm basing a lot of my arguments on police groups, not the media.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Sorter

As someone who hasn't read the thread, is bored and wants to post, what I believe Austin is saying is that statistics can be manipulated fairly easily and aren't entirely representative of the truth. As an example, one might see Matt Cassel's 27-7 td/int ratio and think "Golly, that's not half bad. You might be on to someting there." However, when evaluating more closely, one can see that that simply isn't even remotely ****ing close to being the case.

I'm not saying that's what happened here but statistics are consistently manipulated to appear better than what they actually are.

Actually no. I am saying he is comparing two entirely different sports.

It would be like saying.. well my team scored 101 points today, that means they are better than your team that only scored 3. Nevermind the fact that one team is playing basketball and the other is playing hockey. BUT THE STATS DON'T LIE!

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Sorter

Well yeah stats are evidence.

Welcome to the thread.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

if that was my quote I certainly would be in a pickle.. except that wasn't what I said. I said you provided "stats from vastly dissimilar cultures" which makes them not viable "evidence" at all in this argument.

Ah, so you've now shrinked from your initial claim that the statistics I presented are not evidence to now saying the statistics I presented are not viable evidence.

Welcome back to logic. Except you're still wrong. Statistics from other Western countries are viable evidence, if we're going to actually apply the English language.

You may not agree that it's relevant enough to apply to our current discussion, but it's certainly viable evidence.

[Sorter]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Actually no. I am saying he is comparing two entirely different sports.

It would be like saying.. well my team scored 101 points today, that means they are better than your team that only scored 3. Nevermind the fact that one team is playing basketball and the other is playing hockey. BUT THE STATS DON'T LIE!

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Welcome to the thread.

This is the last time I drink and post in the DC again.


FUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuucckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk