At 1/29/13 08:34 PM, Feoric wrote:
... Obama is not taking your guns, he's not taking the ability away to defend yourself, yadda yadda, ...
Here's a concern though; while slippery slope arguments are fallacious more often than they are valid...there can be validity to them. In the case of guns, those of us who know guns and look at the stats worry. To me there are two options:
OPTION A: Obama has, after 6 years in Washington, learned how to be a pragmatic governor. Therefore, he sees a way to appease a segment of his party's base and public opinion by reinstating the AWB. It is doing something to look effective...even if the policy will not produce any real result. This will allow him to focus on other policy initiatives, and maybe increase his political capital.
OPTION B: This is a first step. In a time of decreasing violence, in a few years the gun-control lobby can point to contrived data as an argument to go after handguns. Afterall, there are more reasons to have more restrictions on handguns than assault rifles like the AR-15. So there is a logical and causal connection between further policies (which makes the slippery slpe a valid logical argument).
Another worrisome sign to me is his executive order for the CDC to study the issue. Now, to most people this may seem perfectly reasonable but something has bothered me about it until last night.
This is not the correct way to fund this research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the government agency that disseminates money to researchers to study issues to reach a scientific understanding of something. The NSF would funnel this money to economists, criminologists, and other social scientists who are trained in statistics and social science methodology.
The CDC on the other hand will funnel money to MDs and epidemiologists (who are jacks of all trades) who are accustomed to looking at these things through the lense viruses and microorganisms that are capable of reproduction and transmitted from person to person. A gun is an inanimate object that does not proliferate on its own. The epidemiological studies I have seen thus far dealing with this subject all suffer from fundamental assumptions that are erroneous.
In short; this is a way for a person with a political agenda to directly and significantly create junk-science to support said agenda.