Jump to content
Radio Shack Killa

God save us....

Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

Herein is the problem.  John Lott and his organization is a very controversial figure pro-gun "research" dude, who has been "debunked" by the other side. And visa versa. We need the CDC and public health researchers to look at this systematically over time. And then let elected officials look at that data to determine what is the best way to allocate funds to protect schools.

There is no doubt that privately funded research can and often does have bias. This is an honest question, though...what makes you believe the CDC can study gun violence without bias? The people at the CDC could very well be right wing nuts or left wing nuts, depending on who they assign the task to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

John Lott has either fabricated or made up research (https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html), he has lied about his research being published (Econ Journal Watch has published no paper by him), has had his research repudiated by the NRC (https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/8#125), and a number of other things.

 

In this particular paper he takes extreme care to define mass killings in order to get the results he wants. No mass shootings as a result of a crime like burglery are allowed. Gang mass shootings are not included: For just example, the Texas biker shootings were defined as not a mass shooting by his criteria and so don't enter into the totals. Terrorist attacks are included. Together with subsequent other manipulations he gets the numbers he wants. These things are well known to anyone who looks at all the research.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Because the CDC has a history of bias towards gun control:

 

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/why-we-cant-trust-the-cdc-with-gun-research-000340

 

Government-funded research was openly biased in the 1990s. CDC officials unabashedly supported gun bans and poured millions of dollars into “research” that was, in fact, advocacy. One of the lead researchers employed in the CDC’s effort was quoted, stating “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” Another researcher said he envisioned a long-term campaign “to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

 

The CDC has a history of trying to control all public health menaces. This is not a partisan issue. It's a public health issue. Oddly, physicians and other healers all try to fight such things. It's not political to try to fight cancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

There is no doubt that privately funded research can and often does have bias. This is an honest question, though...what makes you believe the CDC can study gun violence without bias? The people at the CDC could very well be right wing nuts or left wing nuts, depending on who they assign the task to. 

 

I think it is better than privately funded research. There are structural ways to mitigate that bias. 

 

Paul Ryan says we need more data.  Let's get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

I definitely don't want an assault weapons ban, to be clear.  I don't want any legislation at all until we get more data.

 

I’m not opposed to what you’re saying and I appreciate your position.  I’m just saying that Government research has a bias that needs to be accounted for as well.

 

I’m a Marketing guy.  I took statistics and marketing research.  I’ve worked in multiple companies where I conducted and created all sorts of research.

 

I can generate a study that can say anything you want.

 

It boils down to personal preference.

 

Some people are frightened by firearms.  Some people are comfortable with the government having a monopoly on firearms and defense from crime.

 

I enjoy living in a state that allows its people to buy firearms for sporting and personal protection.  I prefer individual freedom and responsibility over government control.

 

It’s about what I value.  I understand and respect the other side.  I just don’t want to live under their rules.

 

I think the solution to mass shootings is better security in “ gun free” zones 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I’m a Marketing guy.  I took statistics and marketing research.  I’ve worked in multiple companies where I conducted and created all sorts of research.

 

I can generate a study that can say anything you want.

 

It boils down to personal preference.

 

Some people are frightened by firearms.  Some people are comfortable with the government having a monopoly on firearms and defense from crime.

 

I enjoy living in a state that allows its people to buy firearms for sporting and personal protection.  I prefer individual freedom and responsibility over government control.

 

It’s about what I value.  I understand and respect the other side.  I just don’t want to live under their rules.

 

I think the solution to mass shootings is better security in “ gun free” zones 

 

But can you generate a study that says anything you want that can stand repeated peer review? That's a much higher bar.Lott, for example, cannot meet it which is why he has to lie about having his research accepted.

 

As for living under their rules ya. you have a point. But the there has to be a balance for people with both views at some point and right now in my opinion at least the balance is out of whack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NeFrog in the Kitchen Sink said:

 

That is an op-ed from the NRA, no?

 

Okay here is another article. This time from Forbes with a non-NRA member. But same evidence of bias in the CDC.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2016/06/22/why-i-dont-trust-government-backed-gun-violence-research/amp/

 

"However, supporters of the funding ban argue that the CDC is hardly unbiased on this issue. In a 2013 piece, Forbes contributor Larry Bell noted:

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America… Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

Okay here is another article. This time from Forbes with a non-NRA member. But same evidence of bias in the CDC.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2016/06/22/why-i-dont-trust-government-backed-gun-violence-research/amp/

 

"However, supporters of the funding ban argue that the CDC is hardly unbiased on this issue. In a 2013 piece, Forbes contributor Larry Bell noted:

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. This should have come as no surprise, given that ever since 1979, the official goal of the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, had been “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership”, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America… Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

 

What if the actual truth IS that present gun rules present an actual public health problem? (Which most solid research tends to indicate.) Physicians aren't being political when they fight for the life and health of individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

 

What if the actual truth IS that present gun rules present an actual public health problem? (Which most solid research tends to indicate.) Physicians aren't being political when they fight for the life and health of individuals.

 

"This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…"

 

 

Because ^this^ is a direct infringement on the constitution. Because ^this^ says we (the government) will now have an excuse to take your guns away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Luke Chisolm said:

There is no doubt that privately funded research can and often does have bias. This is an honest question, though...what makes you believe the CDC can study gun violence without bias? The people at the CDC could very well be right wing nuts or left wing nuts, depending on who they assign the task to. 

But, isn't the likelihood that the others assigned to such an important study would not be left/right-wing nuts and would temper the contributions of the biased member of the team? Or, maybe, the inappropriate study participant would be identified and removed from the study altogether?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

"This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…"

 

 

Because ^this^ is a direct infringement on the constitution. Because ^this^ says we (the government) will now have an excuse to take your guns away.

 

I like making my own health and firearm decisions.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

 

"This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…"

 

 

Because ^this^ is a direct infringement on the constitution. Because ^this^ says we (the government) will now have an excuse to take your guns away.

 

Not sure I understand. If I start a campaign to increase motorcycle helmet use in a state where anyone is perfectly free go helmetless because I am an emergency room doc in a public health setting who sees what happens repeatedly, am I somehow engaging in unconstitutional behavior? It infringes on no constitutional rights to use lawful means to try to change behavior. The problem for the gun lobby is the CDC can provide powerful lawful means: good solid info. And many gun lobbyists are very much against that for precisely that reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I like making my own health and firearm decisions.

But do you like someone like Cruz making your health decisions for you because of his like for making his own firearm decisions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

But do you like someone like Cruz making your health decisions for you because of his like for making his own firearm decisions?

 

Which is the fundamental problem with strict libertarianism.  It assumes no responsibility for the impact of one's personal decisions have on society.  I can exercise my right not to pay for health insurance, but by doing so, I force people who are paying for insurance to pay more to cover my catastrophic emergency that I cannot afford out-of-pocket.  I can exercise my right not to vaccinate my kids but only by risking the health of not only my own kids but also those who cannot be vaccinated.  I can exercise my right not to wear a motorcycle helmet because I'm not going to have to pay all the municipal costs incurred when my brains end up splattered on the pavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NewfoundlandFreeFrog said:

But do you like someone like Cruz making your health decisions for you because of his like for making his own firearm decisions?

 

RIP 10th Amendment.  I don't want any US senators making my health or firearm decisions.  If Texas legislature starts legislating in ways that i simply cannot live with, I'll gladly move to a different state to achieve favorable laws.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Duquesne Frog said:

 

Which is the fundamental problem with strict libertarianism.  It assumes no responsibility for the impact of one's personal decisions have on society.  I can exercise my right not to pay for health insurance, but by doing so, I force people who are paying for insurance to pay more to cover my catastrophic emergency that I cannot afford out-of-pocket.  I can exercise my right not to vaccinate my kids but only by risking the health of not only my own kids but also those who cannot be vaccinated.  I can exercise my right not to wear a motorcycle helmet because I'm not going to have to pay all the municipal costs incurred when my brains end up splattered on the pavement.

 

It's not a fundamental problem for society so long as the society respects their wishes to live with the consequences of their decision-making. Unfortunately there's too many softies who don't want the motorcycle ward brain damaged and the other groups you mention to sicken, to starve, and to die. Well the vaccination one is harder on society because the bad decisions affect society directly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Army Frog Fan said:

 

RIP 10th Amendment.  I don't want any US senators making my health or firearm decisions.  If Texas legislature starts legislating in ways that i simply cannot live with, I'll gladly move to a different state to achieve favorable laws.

 

Yeah.  I TX is ever turned blue by the lefties from Cali, I’m headed to OK

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find absolutely APPALLING is these people who feel it is completely acceptable to lie about and attack a bunch of kids who just had many of their classmates gunned down.  They are trying to make a change.  They are trying to keep other children from dying.

 

I am sorry but you are an incredible POS if you feel the need to make up stories about these kids or question their sincerity just because their position is different than yours.  I can not even begin to comprehend the level of HATE that is in these folks hearts that they feel justified in attacking these kids.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, gofrogs152 said:

What I find absolutely APPALLING is these people who feel it is completely acceptable to lie about and attack a bunch of kids who just had many of their classmates gunned down.  They are trying to make a change.  They are trying to keep other children from dying.

 

I am sorry but you are an incredible POS if you feel the need to make up stories about these kids or question their sincerity just because their position is different than yours.  I can not even begin to comprehend the level of HATE that is in these folks hearts that they feel justified in attacking these kids.

 

I find it appalling that these people find it acceptable to exploit these kids traumatic tragedy to further their sick political agenda!  They are children that should be allowed to morn!  They shouldn’t be tricked into pushing the sick power hungry agenda of the leftist media!

 

I’m sorry, but you’re a sick POS if you think a massacre is an opportunity to score political points and donations!  I can’t comprehend the level of HATE in the hearts of people who exploit tragedy to try and take the human right of self defense from people!

 

 

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SuperToad said:

CNN trotting out literal fake news. Amazing the length they're going to flat out lie in order to promote gun control.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27431/watch-cnn-legal-analyst-lies-about-trumps-proposal-hank-berrien

 

If someone can't be trusted with a gun, they can’t be trusted to teach children.

 

That being said, I think the answer is trained armed security. Not armed teachers.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I find it appalling that these people find it acceptable to exploit these kids traumatic tragedy to further their sick political agenda!  They are children that should be allowed to morn!  They shouldn’t be tricked into pushing the sick power hungry agenda of the leftist media!

 

I’m sorry, but you’re a sick POS if you think a massacre is an opportunity to score political points and donations!  I can’t comprehend the level of HATE in the hearts of people who exploit tragedy to try and take the human right of self defense from people!

 

 

 

I have absolutely no words for you.  So glad that guns are more important than children's lives.  You're disgusting.  

 

Done with this place.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HFrog1999 said:

 

I find it appalling that these people find it acceptable to exploit these kids traumatic tragedy to further their sick political agenda!  They are children that should be allowed to morn!  They shouldn’t be tricked into pushing the sick power hungry agenda of the leftist media!

 

 

 

You’re making a lot of assumptions here. These kids are exercising their 1st amendment rights. 

 

 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, gofrogs152 said:

 

I have absolutely no words for you.  So glad that guns are more important than children's lives.  You're disgusting.  

 

Done with this place.  

 

I use guns to protect my children’s lives.  I was just providing a different perspective.

 

It’s disgusting how the media is exploding these kids.

 

I don’t call you disgusting for expressing your point of view.  Why do you attack me for expressing mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...