At 2/1/13 06:12 PM, Feoric wrote:
That's not knowing. That's assuming, based on a paper published 20 years ago.
See in the intervening 20 years this issue has been studied by about 200 different universities. And yes...it has included some public health professionals.
Pretty much most of the research comes up with either negative correlations or inconclusive relationships. The research is not 20 years old...but spans the entirity of the past two decades.
Asking the question isn't a contribution, the work is the contribution. Scientists ask themselves the same questions over and over until they get an answer, but asking the question is only one half of the process. Sometimes the things they thought were true turns out not to be true as more and more work gets done and more and more questions get answered.
Again...there is a point where you look at the volumes of research and data and realize that all the indicators are pointing in the same direction. Perhaps we need to look somewhere else.
Afterall, Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. While verification is a good and necessary part of the scientific method...at some point repitition becomes wasteful.
Now hang on just a second, the question of what are the causes of gun violence and how do we prevent it are questions that have been answered with absolute certainty? I certainly don't think so. Those are the two things he's asking the CDC to investigate. They may find an answer. They may not. Again, I fail to see any reason in preventing the CDC from investigating the issue. More light has been shed on the issue, sure, but that's a far cry from answered.
Actually...the question about the causal relationship between gun violence and guns has been shown over and over again to be either a spurious correlation or barely significant link. I'm sorry...but when the best p-value you can get is just at or just over the 0.05 level of significance; it's time to bark up another tree.
Furthermore, as time goes one you can see a negative correlation between guns and crime. In CCW states we now have data sets of realworld data that span over 30 years that does show that concealed carry is one of the statistically significant causal factors of lower crime rates. We also see the gun supply increasing...but crime nationwide dropping percipitiously. Since 1904 as guns have progressed from revolvers, bolt actions and lever actions to today's semi-auto 1911ish pistols, tactical shotguns, and assault rifle clones...accidental deaths have dropped by 95% despite the gun supply increasing.
As a consumer product guns there are about 50M more guns than there are cars...and yet cars kill more people than guns despite cars requiring extensive training and licensing to operate.
Quite simply, it is irrelevent what either one of us believes: the math and science is determinate and the causal question has been answered.
We know that the causes are economic, social and educational. Therefore wasting money on extensive new gun legislation such as an AWB and hi-cap magazine ban would divert money from prevention efforts that would make a difference. And if you want to study the issue further...why give it to people who will start at square one? Or at least 20 years behind? Why not give it to people who are far more versed and specialized in fields that are particularly relevent to the question...instead you are insisting that we give it to researchers who are tangentally related to the disciplines best able to answer the questions.
I mean your insistence on this matter is dumbfounding. When you need surgery do you go to a pathologist...afterall they are both MDs? No...you go to a surgeon. But on this issue, which you claim there is ignorance on (despite research coming out over the past 20 years from over 200 universities)...you're doing the social science/PhD equivalent of just that!
I don't know what it will offer, let them do the work and we'll find out.
Dude, there are public health papers on this question that read like criminology, sociology and economic papers from 20 years ago when researchers were looking into this. They are either going to come up with the same results...or they are going to come up with different results because of flawed methodological practices or less skill in the area of statistical inquiry.
Then the people who know what they are doing are going to point out their mistakes and send them back to the kid's table. And how much money will we have wasted?
How many people will be dead because we wasted money on useless research that could've gone to inner-city jobs or educational programs?
In response to your second post, this is all I really have to say: You don't kill all the research if you just think there are problems in it, you propose ways to change the research. We might learn that guns actually reduce violence. Or that guns reduce violence in certain case, but increase it in another. But we can't know that for sure unless we continue to have long term studies, and the CDC is set up to do just that. If the results of studies of gun violence sides with gun control or the complete opposite, then that's just the scientific process at work. The CDC should be a part of that process.
*sigh* I'm not talking about killing the research.
* I'm saying if you're going to do the research...give the money to social scientists . These are the guys who are trained on advanced statistical techniques that have been fine tuned to address just these sorts of questions.
* Social scientists have been looking into this issue,
* Since social scientists have been looking into this for the past 20 years...
* We have long-term studies going back to 1987. We have access to FBI, state, and even CDC data sets. We already have scientifically rigorous, long-term studies. I am not saying we need to stop it.
* The scientific process is already at work and is currently being done by people who are competent and the best suited for this research. Bringing the CDC in brings in less qualified researchers in who will do nothing more than spin their wheels and waste time, money and effort when we could be putting those resources to use in areas that will actually save lives.