Be a Supporter!

The Nra's Anti-obama Ad

  • 4,008 Views
  • 238 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-30 15:31:30 Reply

At 1/30/13 02:13 PM, TheMason wrote: 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).

I still think Option C (the AWB being DOA) is more likely. I mean sure we can talk endlessly about the unlimited possibilities playing thought experiment games, but let's get some perspective here. Bans on specific criteria and a federal database, for example, seem like extremely specific concepts to me. Undoubtedly these proposals will be interpreted by guns rights advocates as a slippery slope towards Marxism or whatever, but guns rights advocates recently (and currently, believe it or not) felt much the same about an innocuous and previously uncontroversial UN treaty to reduce international arms trafficking.

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.

I'm not buying this whole "the CDC is a biased liberal anti-gun organization which throws out science and facts in order to advance their agenda" nonsense. For starters, let's make sure we're on the same page w/r/t what the CDC does. The CDC is not just limited to just studying infectious diseases as most people think. Since the primary goal of the CDC is basically to monitor health, the CDC researches many things since it's such a broad issue. For example, they study occupational safety and health, accidents, domestic violence and obesity, even though you wouldn't call domestic violence an infectious disease. As a result of which, they have a broad array of experts in many different fields. It's true that they have expertise in epidemiology and biostatistics, but that is exactly what I would want to look for if I wanted an organization who could collect and monitor population health information. The NSF does not specialize in this, they're more focused on engineering, mathematics, economics, computer science, etc. It would be an odd choice, and I have my doubts that they would publish drastically different findings than the CDC if they both did a study for comparison. Actually, why not do that?

That all being said, I don't have a problem with the CDC doing research on firearms if you haven't already guessed. They have done so in the past and were pretty neutral, to me at least. Here's the CDC's review of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban if you want an example. In a nutshell, they said they couldn't make any concrete conclusions on the AWB's effectiveness due to the flaws in the research available at the time. I think this completely goes against your claims that they're a biased organization which only intends to add fuel to the slippery slope fire. I mean really, in a thread about the NRA, isn't it really obvious to know for sure which organization here has an actual overt agenda?

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-30 23:07:12 Reply

At 1/30/13 03:31 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm not buying this whole "the CDC is a biased liberal anti-gun organization which throws out science and facts in order to advance their agenda" nonsense. For starters, let's make sure we're on the same page w/r/t what the CDC does. The CDC is not just limited to just studying infectious diseases as most people think. Since the primary goal of the CDC is basically to monitor health, the CDC researches many things since it's such a broad issue. For example, they study occupational safety and health, accidents, domestic violence and obesity, even though you wouldn't call domestic violence an infectious disease. As a result of which, they have a broad array of experts in many different fields. It's true that they have expertise in epidemiology and biostatistics, but that is exactly what I would want to look for if I wanted an organization who could collect and monitor population health information. The NSF does not specialize in this, they're more focused on engineering, mathematics, economics, computer science, etc. It would be an odd choice, and I have my doubts that they would publish drastically different findings than the CDC if they both did a study for comparison. Actually, why not do that?\

* The NSF IS the correct way to fund this and it would not be an odd choice. It is the normal choice. This is not a public health question...but rather a social science issue (sociology, psychology, criminology, economics and political science). These are the researchers who specialize in the methodology of just these types of questions.

Furthermore, the NSF is not the people who actually do the research...instead they are the agency that administers research grants to universities as well as other research institutions. While you state that they are more focused on math, engineering, etc...and that is true...and it is also true that in comparison the social sciences are neglected by the NSF. But the NSF is THE primary source of funding for the social sciences.

So no...the NSF is not an odd choice. It is the natural choice...which is why directing the CDC to study this issue is the odd choice.

* I do understand what the CDC does. And while looking at everything through the public health prism is a novel approach...one has to ask if it is the best way. For example, many proponents of the CDC/public health approach point to the engineering advancements made with cars and highways can be applied to guns. So how much are we going to waste on researching this idea? Guns are simple machines with safety features already engineered into them. There is little to no room for improvement. In the social sciences this notion would be discarded with minimal expenditure of funds (we're used to having to deal with strict budgets)...but there's more money in medical research so they will be more apt to waste it on silliness.


... I think this completely goes against your claims that they're a biased organization which only intends to add fuel to the slippery slope fire. I mean really, in a thread about the NRA, isn't it really obvious to know for sure which organization here has an actual overt agenda?

Let me clarify something...I'm not saying that the CDC is going to intentionally produce junk science. Instead it is going to be a by-product of putting it in their hands. The reasons:

* There is a wide academic body of literature that is commonly overlooked by epidemiologists. In Obama's words: "We donâEUTMt benefit from ignorance. We donâEUTMt benefit from not knowing the science of this epidemic of violence." This is either a lie or it is indicative of Obama's ignorance of this subject.

* We'll spend millions of dollars on studies that reproduce work that has already been done. Or they research dead ends such as "engineering controls" a la automobiles (and yet when I make comparisons to cars...its absurd). This is wasted money that could fund research by people already familiar with what has been done...or on programs that will reduce gun violence.

* On issues of social science...these guys as I've pointed out, are the "B-Team". Fundamentally they specialize in looking into very different sorts of questions than social science inquiry. And the social sciences are almost exclusively funded by the NSF.

====

So in conclusion...I'm not really saying the junk science is going to be intentional. Instead, we're going to duplicate work/effort on researchers working on questions that have already been researched and answered (I've seen some public health researchers already talking about how data does not exist on CCW...which it does...in droves). We're also going to be spending money on research that doesn't pass the giggle test. Furthermore, by giving it to people who do not specialize in these modes of inquiry...when the existing body of literature is only ignorant because it does not support your policies...are more likely to make mistakes that go in your favor than the people who actually specialize in answering these questions.

:)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-30 23:57:22 Reply

At 1/30/13 02:32 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Um, no....do you smoke a lot of weed? You seem to have some crazy delusional paranoia going on here?

No, it's me accurately predicting how you would react.

Here's a tyrant because he kills kids overseas, and steals your money. The AWB just makes him an opportunistic asshole, because he takes advantage of people's emotions (if we don't pass this, millions of seniors will die. If we don't do a bailout, the economy will collapse. If we don't ban "military style" weapons, kids will die). It's disgusting. He can't make a case for most of his causes, because they're retarded, so he scares people into accepting them (if we don't do this, x bad thing will happen)

You just called me paranoid and you went off on this rant. You expect people to take you seriously? You constantly rehash this crap over and over. I think it's fair to say you take a rather Marxist view of the government, while making Classical Liberal conclusions which gets confusing. You're essentially taking the route of Lyndon LaRouche without the antisemitism. I guess that's better than the route of David Duke.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-31 00:36:46 Reply

At 1/30/13 11:57 PM, Warforger wrote: No, it's me accurately predicting how you would react.

Sounds like acute paranoia to me. You didn't predict anything, you just went off on a tangent about some delusional pre-scripted universe your head seems to be in.

You just called me paranoid and you went off on this rant. You expect people to take you seriously? You constantly rehash this crap over and over. I think it's fair to say you take a rather Marxist view of the government, while making Classical Liberal conclusions which gets confusing. You're essentially taking the route of Lyndon LaRouche without the antisemitism. I guess that's better than the route of David Duke.

I didn't think it was possible to be so wrong so fast. Like...you didn't even make it past the first sentence before you fell all over the place. Please, do try again :) And make some actual points this time.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-31 21:09:40 Reply

At 1/31/13 12:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Sounds like acute paranoia to me. You didn't predict anything, you just went off on a tangent about some delusional pre-scripted universe your head seems to be in.

So you have no idea what paranoia is?

At 1/31/13 12:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: I didn't think it was possible to be so wrong so fast. Like...you didn't even make it past the first sentence before you fell all over the place. Please, do try again :) And make some actual points this time.

So wrong so fast? You know what I think you're right. It's hard to convince the guy who has his head stuck up his ass that his head is stuck up his ass so it's not really worth my time to talk to you better to do something productive.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-31 22:26:08 Reply

At 1/30/13 11:07 PM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, the NSF is not the people who actually do the research...instead they are the agency that administers research grants to universities as well as other research institutions. While you state that they are more focused on math, engineering, etc...and that is true...and it is also true that in comparison the social sciences are neglected by the NSF. But the NSF is THE primary source of funding for the social sciences.

Ah, gotcha. The figures I've been able to find showed me that the NSF only accounts for about 20% of all public research funding. Other agencies are run even more independently and farther removed from politicians.

So no...the NSF is not an odd choice. It is the natural choice...which is why directing the CDC to study this issue is the odd choice.

It's not odd at all, because the CDC has been consistently collecting data on gun violence for years. The only thing odd here is not letting the agency with the most amount of data on the subject to not publish any research with the information they already have. Let me state clearly here that I have no qualm with the NSF funding research to other institutions to conduct research. Information is awesome, and information on this subject is needed. Which is exactly why I have such a big issue with the NRA, as they have been lobbying to prevent institutions like the CDC, ATF and NIH to bring more information to the public. I think it's worth reiterating the fact that the issue of what the root causes of gun violence are is something that is our beyond our current ability to state with 100% certainty. It is an immensely complex issue and the outcome of any research paper can vary wildly depending on methodology. To take that a step further, I certainly don't expect those root causes to be addressed immediately, perhaps not even under Obama's second term. However, what I do support right now is at least treating some of the symptoms. Without the proper research, we're not going to accurately diagnose those, and the result of that is ridiculous and meaningless legislation. The only outcome of that scenario is gun control dying as a national issue as it did after the 2000 election, and the chance to perhaps do something right will be lost for another decade or more. This should be a slow process, but the realization should be swift. My position here is not deciding on an either-or situation: the NSF funded research vs the CDC. My position is let them both do their jobs.

I do, however, think there is something else at play here. I think there's a fear that an empirical study from the CDC could have a strong impact among citizens and lawmakers, which would be used as a political tool to put forward new gun control legislation. I think that was the motive when the NRA prevented the CDC from conducting gun research: mitigating any risk associated with putting any sort of power into an organization that can potentially affect public attitude and legislation. This was just a blatant act of a self interest group restricting the scientific process. Scientifically conducted research should not be held hostage for not taking into consideration the political climate and the sensibilities held by a fraction of the population regarding a controversial issue. This, I believe, is what Obama was talking about in that quote you posted.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-31 22:58:29 Reply

At 1/31/13 09:09 PM, Warforger wrote: So you have no idea what paranoia is?

You seemd to start making paranoid accusations.

So wrong so fast? You know what I think you're right. It's hard to convince the guy who has his head stuck up his ass that his head is stuck up his ass so it's not really worth my time to talk to you better to do something productive.

I'm not wrong. You accused me of being a Marxist for shit's sake. I mean...fucking come on.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-01-31 23:52:27 Reply

At 1/31/13 10:58 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I'm not wrong. You accused me of being a Marxist for shit's sake. I mean...fucking come on.

I didn't, i said your viewpoint is. You talk as though the Economic elites control the government, that is the very definition of the Marxist view. It's one of the first things you learn about in a government class.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 00:42:02 Reply

At 1/31/13 11:52 PM, Warforger wrote: I didn't, i said your viewpoint is. You talk as though the Economic elites control the government, that is the very definition of the Marxist view.

Oh dear child.

Economic elites do run the government. This belief has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is mostly an anti-capitalist view. Just because you're anti-corporatism does not mean you're a Marxist, as Marxism pushes for NO capitalism. My view has nothing to do with this in the least. Marxism pushes for no private industry, and no private ownership.

In fact, my view is so pro-capitalism, I don't understand how anyone can call me Marxist. That's a new one for sure.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 01:34:09 Reply

At 2/1/13 12:42 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Oh dear child.

You have no grounds to be looking down on anyone here.

Economic elites do run the government. This belief has nothing to do with Marxism. Marxism is mostly an anti-capitalist view.

It's anti-capitalist because Marx believed that the economic elites created by capitalism controlled the government.

In fact, my view is so pro-capitalism, I don't understand how anyone can call me Marxist. That's a new one for sure.

You're a Marxist in that you share the same view of the current system that Marx did of his system.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 09:24:59 Reply

At 1/31/13 10:26 PM, Feoric wrote: Ah, gotcha. The figures I've been able to find showed me that the NSF only accounts for about 20% of all public research funding. Other agencies are run even more independently and farther removed from politicians.

Gotcha? NOT AT ALL! Dude, I was part of the ivory tower in the social sciences (political science). I KNOW how our research was funded...as well as other social science disciplines. The major fource of funding is grants through the NSF! My assistantships (ie: income) and scholarships came through these grants, and since it allowed me to eat and live in an apartment...I was pretty damned interested in where the money came from!

You are looking at this part of the question through the macro lense. Social science funding is a small part of the NSF (many would argue a neglected part). They give much more money to the hard science fields (chemistry, physics, etc). Which is crazy because, as you point out, they get money from other sources. However, for the social sciences...this is THE major source of funding.


It's not odd at all, because the CDC has been consistently collecting data on gun violence for years. The only thing odd here is not letting the agency with the most amount of data on the subject to not publish any research with the information they already have. Let me state clearly here that I have no qualm with the NSF funding research to other institutions to conduct research. Information is awesome, and information on this subject is needed. ...

Dude...wrong.

The CDC is not the agency with the most amount of data. You have the FBI. You have datasets, very complete and nuanced datasets, in the hands of researchers in fields that have made advances on these questions. Researchers whose primary area of expertise is tackling these sort of questions.

We have knowledge and information that is far past what the CDC can provide on this issue. Funding the CDC is essentially starting back at square one with your JV team when your getting ready to play the state championship.


I do, however, think there is something else at play here. I think there's a fear that an empirical study from the CDC could have a strong impact among citizens and lawmakers, which would be used as a political tool to put forward new gun control legislation. I think that was the motive when the NRA prevented the CDC from conducting gun research: mitigating any risk associated with putting any sort of power into an organization that can potentially affect public attitude and legislation. This was just a blatant act of a self interest group restricting the scientific process. Scientifically conducted research should not be held hostage for not taking into consideration the political climate and the sensibilities held by a fraction of the population regarding a controversial issue. This, I believe, is what Obama was talking about in that quote you posted.

First of all...I agree with you that the NRA is approaching CDC funding from a political angle in terms of legislation.

I am not making that argument...nor am I affiliated with the NRA, nor do I agree that limiting scientific inquiry to achieve political ends is a good thing.

I am however speaking as a social scientist. We have data sets. We have extensive research, and the data is leading us in directions that should inform our public policy. I am familiar with the approach the epidemiologists at the CDC want to take with this question. And guess what? Their approach isn't deserving of diverting money from other research or policy options for the following reasons:

* CONTRIBUTION: When conducting research it is important to ask oneself what contribution this will make to the existing body of knowledge. The answer: none to very little. There is already an extensive academic/scientific body of literature out there. However, when I read articles presented by public health researchers...they seem oblivious to this fact. Ergo...we will be spending money to re-answer questions that have already been researched.

* NOVELTY: Is their approach different in some way? Yes it is, I will give them that. However, they seek to treat gun violence as a disease. But again...it is re-phrasing existing knowledge in new terms. Guns are not viruses or microorganisms that are capable of contagion or replicating on their own. However, the root causes of education and poverty can be prevented from spreading...through wise public policy.

Chasing imaginary rabbits in ignorant, vain attempts at 'engineering solutions' will only divert time and resources from actually saving lives.

How many people will have to die before we stop wasting resources on things that won't save a single life?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 11:42:36 Reply

At 2/1/13 01:34 AM, Camarohusky wrote: You have no grounds to be looking down on anyone here.

I'm arguing with someone with the economic understanding of a 3rd grader

It's anti-capitalist because Marx believed that the economic elites created by capitalism controlled the government.

Exactly. I do not. Economic elites control the government through the opposite of capitalism.

You're a Marxist in that you share the same view of the current system that Marx did of his system.

No, Marx was of the mind that there should be no private industry whatsoever. I do not believe such things, I just believe the industry should be 100% removed from government.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 12:34:28 Reply

At 2/1/13 09:24 AM, TheMason wrote: Gotcha? NOT AT ALL! Dude, I was part of the ivory tower in the social sciences (political science). I KNOW how our research was funded...as well as other social science disciplines. The major fource of funding is grants through the NSF! My assistantships (ie: income) and scholarships came through these grants, and since it allowed me to eat and live in an apartment...I was pretty damned interested in where the money came from!

I'm not arguing this point at all. I just think it's worth mentioning that there was a time when the CDC was a primary funder of research on guns and gun related injuries, but not since 1996.

The CDC is not the agency with the most amount of data. You have the FBI. You have datasets, very complete and nuanced datasets, in the hands of researchers in fields that have made advances on these questions. Researchers whose primary area of expertise is tackling these sort of questions.

The difference here is that the FBI does not focus on researching public health issues. The CDC has been collecting this information for decades. Demonstrate to me how the CDC does not have complete and nuanced datasets, and that their researchers are lacking in expertise and are incapable of investigating the problem, and demonstrate that this is not due to a lack of funding. Having insufficient data because you've been prevented from researching a topic for 20 years != incapable of doing the research.

We have knowledge and information that is far past what the CDC can provide on this issue. Funding the CDC is essentially starting back at square one with your JV team when your getting ready to play the state championship.

Fine, let them play a shitty game like you believe they will. Just don't let them not play at all.

* CONTRIBUTION: When conducting research it is important to ask oneself what contribution this will make to the existing body of knowledge. The answer: none to very little.

I don't agree with this at all, and it's grossly unscientific. How would you know how this contributes to the existing body of literature on the subject if the research hasn't been done yet? It's impossible to answer this question without doing the work. Either the research finds evidence of a certain phenomena, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, that itself is valuable, as it shows that something needs to be done differently and a new way of thinking is required. I certainly don't want academic research being thrown out because they thought it didn't contribute to anything. Let everyone else decide that.

* NOVELTY: Is their approach different in some way? Yes it is, I will give them that. However, they seek to treat gun violence as a disease. But again...it is re-phrasing existing knowledge in new terms. Guns are not viruses or microorganisms that are capable of contagion or replicating on their own. However, the root causes of education and poverty can be prevented from spreading...through wise public policy.

We can certainly debate that, but that's really besides my point. I honestly don't care how they view the problem, just let them use the information they already have to research the topic. If their study is shit, fine, then it's shit. If it's good, then great. There's no way of knowing this until they actually do it. Give the NSF more funding so they can give grants for more research. I have no problem with that. My problem is not allowing institutions to publish research because you don't like their methodology. You don't have to like it, just don't inhibit the flow of information we need on the topic.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 13:58:19 Reply

Hasn't the research been done though? Didn't they do it in the past?

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 14:14:42 Reply

At 2/1/13 01:58 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Hasn't the research been done though? Didn't they do it in the past?

Yes, but a lot of gun activists and the NRA weren't a big fan of Arthur Kellermann so they prevented the CDC from doing more.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 16:56:10 Reply

@ Feoric

Yes there is a way to know before they do the work...it's called the work has been done. See this is a norm in social science inquiry. Has the question been thoroughly researched? If so...then asking the same question over and over again does not make any contribution to any body of scientific knowledge.

I agree with you that for the past 20 years the CDC has not done anything with this question. But guess what? That does not mean that nothing has been done and some of the questions Obama is asking for...have already been answered. We are not suffering from ignorance.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The questions have already been answered and examined. Furthermore, what data sets the CDC has...are available for other (and better trained specialists) researchers to study. Along with FBI data sets and a whole host of other data sets.

I'm not convinced that diverting money to people who haven't conducted research on this topic for 20 years is wise when , if you want more research, there are better ways of distributing the money.

Why is starting at square 1 such a good idea?

What will it offer?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 17:09:15 Reply

At 2/1/13 12:34 PM, Feoric wrote: The difference here is that the FBI does not focus on researching public health issues. The CDC has been collecting this information for decades. Demonstrate to me how the CDC does not have complete and nuanced datasets, and that their researchers are lacking in expertise and are incapable of investigating the problem, and demonstrate that this is not due to a lack of funding. Having insufficient data because you've been prevented from researching a topic for 20 years != incapable of doing the research.

1) This is not a public health issue. It is more of a sociological and economic issue.

2) It is a stretch to make this a public health issue which, de facto means that having an epidemiologist working on this means you have someone who has some training in stats and the social sciences but no speicalization in social science methodology. Instead, they look at things like disease screening, being CSI for outbreaks, pathologies, and clinical trials.

The simple answer it is not in their training, and they are out of their depth. I've read studies by these guys on this topic...and their methodology is so sloppy as to be comical.

I'll give you an example. Someone poste a public health approach to whether or not the methodology used to determine the number of DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) were appropriate. They used the method of determining DGUs (surveys) to determine how many times they were used criminally...all without doing surveys themselves. Furthermore...they did not seem to grasp that often in social science you have to compare survey data to realworld data (something that the hard sciences, with the exception of climatology, has a hard time grasping).

The end result was a paper that did not prove anything, posing as serious research that was making some sort of contribution.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-01 18:12:33 Reply

At 2/1/13 04:56 PM, TheMason wrote: @ Feoric

Yes there is a way to know before they do the work...it's called the work has been done.

That's not knowing. That's assuming, based on a paper published 20 years ago.

See this is a norm in social science inquiry. Has the question been thoroughly researched? If so...then asking the same question over and over again does not make any contribution to any body of scientific knowledge.

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.

I agree with you that for the past 20 years the CDC has not done anything with this question. But guess what? That does not mean that nothing has been done and some of the questions Obama is asking for...have already been answered. We are not suffering from ignorance.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The questions have already been answered and examined. Furthermore, what data sets the CDC has...are available for other (and better trained specialists) researchers to study. Along with FBI data sets and a whole host of other data sets.

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.

I'm not convinced that diverting money to people who haven't conducted research on this topic for 20 years is wise when , if you want more research, there are better ways of distributing the money.

Why is starting at square 1 such a good idea?

What will it offer?

I don't know what it will offer, let them do the work and we'll find out.

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.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-02 00:19:36 Reply

At 2/1/13 06:12 PM, Feoric wrote:
That's not knowing. That's assuming, based on a paper published 20 years ago.

Simply.
Not.
True.

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 who are funded through the NSF and NOT the CDC. 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, we do not operate in the vaccum of ignorance which you seem to be implying we currently have.

* Since social scientists have been looking into this for the past 20 years...we have also resolved many methodological issues along the way. Bringing people in whose training emphasizes other things over social science methodology will only CAUSE methodological problems instead of solving them.

* 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. I'm just saying that you've got people who are immensly more qualified to conduct the research who are being cut out of the research money.

* 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.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-02 00:24:24 Reply

At 2/2/13 12:19 AM, TheMason wrote: 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.

Oops...

Should read:
"...that read like criminology, sociology and economic papers from 20 years ago when those researchers were first looking into this.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-02 12:00:13 Reply

At 2/2/13 12:19 AM, TheMason wrote: stuff

I really don't have anything else to say in response to this. Thanks for the new insight!

Fim
Fim
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 47
Audiophile
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-02 12:38:34 Reply

Since a lot of what's being 'debated' here is nothing but subjective opinion, let's all take a moment to consider the transvestite view on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsN0FCXw914


BBS Signature
GamesArmor
GamesArmor
  • Member since: Jul. 29, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Melancholy
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-02 15:37:54 Reply

Ah yes, the classic result of a thread in Politics being 8 pages long. Nearly every post is a wall of quoted text.

The video does have a point, but it's ridiculous to think that it's going to make much of a difference.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 00:06:36 Reply

At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote: Ah yes, the classic result of a thread in Politics being 8 pages long. Nearly every post is a wall of quoted text.

The video does have a point, but it's ridiculous to think that it's going to make much of a difference.

What point is that? The video somehow suggests people who are commit ed to murdering people can't if guns aren't available. I don't think that is an accurate statement to make. And most gun violence is committed by criminals on criminals. If you remove suicides and an entire race from our gun death statistics it becomes one of the lowest.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 01:23:17 Reply

At 2/2/13 12:38 PM, Fim wrote: Since a lot of what's being 'debated' here is nothing but subjective opinion, let's all take a moment to consider the transvestite view on this.
At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote:
The video does have a point, ...

Ah...but how good of a view/point is it? What understanding does Eddie Izzard have to speak on this issue? Yeah...there is humor, but how good is the insight behind the humor?

This is what I've been talking about.

There is an objective side to this. There is science involved with ballistics and understanding the dynamics that lead to gun crime.

Now if you do not come from an understanding of guns and/or the science (hard and soft) involved...how can you know what is reasonable or what is a good point?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
GamesArmor
GamesArmor
  • Member since: Jul. 29, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 15
Melancholy
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 17:32:00 Reply

At 2/3/13 12:06 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote: Ah yes, the classic result of a thread in Politics being 8 pages long. Nearly every post is a wall of quoted text.

The video does have a point, but it's ridiculous to think that it's going to make much of a difference.
What point is that? The video somehow suggests people who are commit ed to murdering people can't if guns aren't available. I don't think that is an accurate statement to make.

Neither do I... I agree with you... Are we even talking about the same video? I was talking about the one in the OP. And yeah... other guy that quoted me... I have no idea what you are talking about.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 17:41:41 Reply

At 2/3/13 05:32 PM, GamesArmor wrote:
At 2/3/13 12:06 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote:
What point is that? The video somehow suggests people who are commit ed to murdering people can't if guns aren't available. I don't think that is an accurate statement to make.
Neither do I... I agree with you... Are we even talking about the same video? I was talking about the one in the OP. And yeah... other guy that quoted me... I have no idea what you are talking about.

I think it's a classic misconception. You posted this right after flm posted a Youtube video from Eddie Izzard so we thought you were agreeing with the comedian.

Sorry. :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 17:43:19 Reply

At 2/3/13 05:41 PM, TheMason wrote: * misconception

Damn, I can't talk today! lol

Should be:'miscommunication'.

And I keep getting the DP warning! NG needs an edit button!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to The Nra's Anti-obama Ad 2013-02-03 18:44:11 Reply

Mason's right, I thought you were talking about the video posted directly above you.