Author Topic: More shootings...are the media creating more?  (Read 77576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 3574
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2205 on: September 11, 2019, 07:18:08 PM »
Vape sellers everywhere are frantically trying to figure out how to make vape pens shoot bullets so trump doesnt ban them.

 :lol
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18519
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2206 on: September 12, 2019, 07:34:52 AM »
I wrote a long(er) reply, and can recreate it if necessary, but the crux of it was:

I get the skepticism and sarcasm, because while for a while the data was not entirely clear, it seems that the dust is settling in the camp of "video games do not cause violence" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/olliebarder/2019/02/15/new-study-shows-that-there-is-no-link-between-violent-video-games-and-aggression-in-teenagers/#7a576298328e - and experts like Dr. Phil agree (that's not a joke). 

So, given that the data is in a similar place, why not the skepticism and sarcasm for the OTHER popular scapegoat, guns?

Because you're not going to kill someone by simply yelling "BANG!" at them, unless their heart is really on the rocks.

Seriously, the mental gymnastics here to avoid even the slightest suggestions that *maybe* guns are to blame for people dying due to being shot at by guns is both horrific and exhausting to watch.

I'm not sure why you mischaracterize "hard data" as "mental gymnastics".  "Mental gymnastics" implies an agenda or an ulterior motive to arrive at a specific conclusion DESPITE the data.   I've not taken one position that isn't supported by the preponderance of the data, and professional, defensible, peer-reviewed analyses of that data.  I'm not a gun guy.  I have no vested interest in "guns" or any of the positions of the "gun lobby".  My only criteria is "what's going to save the most lives in the long run?"*  (And an admitted disdain for the rationale of "common sense" in lieu of more substantive arguments.)  I'm not really interested in these blanket characterizations, but surely if one is pushing a conclusion that isn't clearly supported by the data, that's more aptly characterized as "mental gymnastics"?

I just question why so much energy is put into pushing a program that has not been shown to work AT THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER OPTIONS.  That's the important part; understand that a key aspect of my position is the assumption that passing gun-specific legislation will effectively chill any further inquiry into non-gun variables.  Some of the people - both here and generally - that are pushing gun control have offered that they're open to a more comprehensive solution, but NONE have provided even a hint of anything else "worth trying" to solve the problem.   Surely if the standard is "what does it hurt to try?" there would be other things to address in order to reduce the number of people that want to slaughter their co-workers, fellow students, or random members of the community?   

*(As proof of this, I've been on record for a while now saying that if your goal is to reduce suicide deaths, we should be increasing background checks, and we should be increasing the ability of wellness providers to influence the information in those background checks so that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.  Gun MURDERS have been generally DROPPING in the U.S. over the past  25 years or so, but gun SUICIDES have been increasing, at least over the past ten years.  Estimates for 2018 have over 60% of gun deaths being suicides.  This and this.  The former is a decidedly anti-gun data source, by the way.)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 09:22:57 AM by Stadler »

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28628
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2207 on: September 12, 2019, 08:30:14 AM »
What other options??  You are so quick to debunk why trying anything that limits/restricts gun or ammunition ownership will not work (and chastise any such efforts), but rarely offer solutions that should be attempted.

So if your stance is going "question why so much energy is put into pushing a program that has not been shown to work AT THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER OPTIONS" ... with the emphasis on all other options, then by all means, please enlighten us with just a few of these litany of options available that A) no one is trying, B) would be acceptable to you, and C) will have a demonstrable impact.

For 'not a gun guy' you sure do go to great lengths to refute any efforts to limit/reduce them.

Also, just to fix your quote as some of your hotlinks got all messed up.

I'm not sure why you mischaracterize "hard data" as "mental gymnastics".  "Mental gymnastics" implies an agenda or an ulterior motive to arrive at a specific conclusion DESPITE the data.   I've not taken one position that isn't supported by the preponderance of the data, and professional, defensible, peer-reviewed analyses of that data.  I'm not a gun guy.  I have no vested interest in "guns" or any of the positions of the "gun lobby".  My only criteria is "what's going to save the most lives in the long run?"*  (And an admitted disdain for the rationale of "common sense" in lieu of more substantive arguments.)  I'm not really interested in these blanket characterizations, but surely if one is pushing a conclusion that isn't clearly supported by the data, that's more aptly characterized as "mental gymnastics"?

I just question why so much energy is put into pushing a program that has not been shown to work AT THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER OPTIONS.  That's the important part; understand that a key aspect of my position is the assumption that passing gun-specific legislation will effectively chill any further inquiry into non-gun variables.  Some of the people - both here and generally - that are pushing gun control have offered that they're open to a more comprehensive solution, but NONE have provided even a hint of anything else "worth trying" to solve the problem.   Surely if the standard is "what does it hurt to try?" there would be other things to address in order to reduce the number of people that want to slaughter their co-workers, fellow students, or random members of the community?   

*(As proof of this, I've been on record for a while now saying that if your goal is to reduce suicide deaths, we should be increasing background checks, and we should be increasing the ability of wellness providers to influence the information in those background checks so that guns do not fall into the wrong hands.  Gun MURDERS have been generally DROPPING in the U.S. over the past  25 years or so, but gun SUICIDES have been increasing, at least over the past ten years.  Estimates for 2018 have over 60% of gun deaths being suicides.  This and this.  The former is a decidedly anti-gun data source, by the way.)
if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18519
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2208 on: September 12, 2019, 10:21:02 AM »
What other options??  You are so quick to debunk why trying anything that limits/restricts gun or ammunition ownership will not work (and chastise any such efforts), but rarely offer solutions that should be attempted.

So if your stance is going "question why so much energy is put into pushing a program that has not been shown to work AT THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER OPTIONS" ... with the emphasis on all other options, then by all means, please enlighten us with just a few of these litany of options available that A) no one is trying, B) would be acceptable to you, and C) will have a demonstrable impact.

For 'not a gun guy' you sure do go to great lengths to refute any efforts to limit/reduce them.

I don't know what to make of that comment.  I'm inclined to use that as evidence of our fixation on guns.   I'm not going to ANY lengths to refute efforts to limit reduce guns, I'm going to GREAT lengths to refute efforts to ignore data and rely on "common sense".   There's a huge difference.  (And by the way, even if we WERE to concede the use of "common sense" as a rationale, the argument STILL doesn't work:  gun ownership is DOWN, gun homicides are DOWN, and yet... mass killings are on the rise.  Doesn't "make sense".   So what else is on the rise?  I've written about this extensively in this thread.)

As far as "other things", I'm not sure I have a cogent, publishable position paper at the ready but I've got suggestions and solutions littered throughout this thread, and elsewhere.  I didn't go through page by page or anything, but there are snippets on any of 10 or 15 pages here.

First and foremost, we need to study this deeper.  Remove any restrictions on the CDC and provide them the funding.  We're already seeing patterns and demographic indicators that are beyond "common sense" but illuminating, and may help us not only target potential actors, but also prevent other crimes/harms that don't rise to the level of "mass killings":  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-all-mass-shootings-have-in-common/2019/08/05/2fff25be-b790-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html   

I have zero problem with universal background checks, but we need to know who we're looking for.  I have zero problem selectively keeping guns out of the hands of "those that shouldn't have them", but we need to have a better understanding of who those people are.  I wrote in a post a couple pages ago that the FBI has refined their capabilities to the point that we can seemingly identify serial killers from the type of salad dressing they use and the shows they record on their DVRs.  We need to start broadening that skill and approaching that level of accuracy on mass killers.

We need to get more holistic in how we look at things like suicide, addiction, and violence.   I've listed too many times the other major categories that we "lead the world in" (we may not literally lead the world, but are relatively high on the respective list) and use that to understand why people are responding they way they are.  These are all ways of responding to stimuli/stressors, and in my view, need to be looked at together.

I've also written this before:  if public perception is so great that we cannot possibly proceed another day without banning guns or ammo, then do it, but in the legislation put the requirement to fund further research and have a sunset clause to require either an update on the efficacy of the legislation, or an update/modification based on the results of any of the research conducted.  We've done this countless times in the environmental field, no reason we can't do this here.  This satisfies those that want to "try anything", but keeps us honest in terms of looking for other solutions, either as replacements, or as adders. 

My deepest fear - fueled by my belief that the problem isn't, at heart, guns - is that we'll use the passing of gun legislation as a panacea, and consider that the finish line and never bother to pursue anything else (like we did with the ACA).   And the biggest problem?  None of these make for a great tweet, and none of these feed the need to have a scapegoat.   Our society is predicated on the "them", and with my solution(s), there is no "them".   

Quote
Also, just to fix your quote as some of your hotlinks got all messed up.

Thank you; I had a stray "]" while using my new toy.  :)   
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 10:28:01 AM by Stadler »

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28628
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2209 on: September 12, 2019, 12:51:30 PM »
Ok.... reasonable options to explore.  Though you know the CDC is cock-blocked, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.  And I agree wholeheartedly agree that any changes need to go beyond just 'ban dem gunz and bulletz!!'.  That is unlikely to be the be all and end all of a solution.
if I want ice cream or a chocolate or a cake, I fucking have it
Can you imagine some alien race comes to a large nebula they've never seen before, and it just turns out it's the Federation's dumping ground for space-smile?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18519
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2210 on: September 12, 2019, 06:26:59 PM »
Ok.... reasonable options to explore.  Though you know the CDC is cock-blocked, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.  And I agree wholeheartedly agree that any changes need to go beyond just 'ban dem gunz and bulletz!!'.  That is unlikely to be the be all and end all of a solution.

I agree and it's a shame, but it's not a dealbreaker; I wrote about that as well.  The NRA has only been able to say that government funds can't be used to advocate gun control.  That doesn't mean they can't accrue the data, that doesn't mean that others - I'm thinking the universities that have been outspoken in their political positions, like Harvard - can't take the data and mine it. 

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 8029
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2211 on: September 12, 2019, 10:04:02 PM »
Heard the back end of a conversation on the radio involving civil proceedings whereby someone could petition a civil court to rescind another person's right own a firearm. I am sketchy on the details because I didn't hear the whole thing. But basically it sounded like someone could ask the court to remove a person's firearms if it appears they could present a danger to themselves or others (presumably based on internet posts, threats, etc...). This would be separate from criminal court, so no criminal charges would be filed against the person. It would not be permanent; the person could apply for 'reinstatement' after two years. There would also be repercussions if someone files a bogus suit - so you can't get back at your boyfriend who dumped you by claiming he poses a thread and should have his firearms taken away.

I am sorry I am not presenting it well. It wasn't even a public official who discussed it, and I cannot even recall their name to research it. But it sounded reasonable and well thought out.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2212 on: September 13, 2019, 08:33:19 AM »
Ok.... reasonable options to explore.  Though you know the CDC is cock-blocked, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.  And I agree wholeheartedly agree that any changes need to go beyond just 'ban dem gunz and bulletz!!'.  That is unlikely to be the be all and end all of a solution.

I agree and it's a shame, but it's not a dealbreaker; I wrote about that as well.  The NRA has only been able to say that government funds can't be used to advocate gun control.  That doesn't mean they can't accrue the data, that doesn't mean that others - I'm thinking the universities that have been outspoken in their political positions, like Harvard - can't take the data and mine it.

No offense but it isn't that easy.  Who is going to pay for this research?  What meaningful data can be "accrued" when it hasn't been able to be accurately collected in the past 2 decades?  How would mining existing data yield any accurate information when it is incomplete?  And say some university does agree to mine whatever data exists then what?  Is the government going to just agree with the research or are they going to spend the next decade attacking it for being incomplete and/or inaccurate?  What university wants any part of that?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18519
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2213 on: September 13, 2019, 10:43:46 AM »
Ok.... reasonable options to explore.  Though you know the CDC is cock-blocked, and the NRA isn't going to let that happen anytime soon.  And I agree wholeheartedly agree that any changes need to go beyond just 'ban dem gunz and bulletz!!'.  That is unlikely to be the be all and end all of a solution.

I agree and it's a shame, but it's not a dealbreaker; I wrote about that as well.  The NRA has only been able to say that government funds can't be used to advocate gun control.  That doesn't mean they can't accrue the data, that doesn't mean that others - I'm thinking the universities that have been outspoken in their political positions, like Harvard - can't take the data and mine it.

No offense but it isn't that easy.  Who is going to pay for this research?  What meaningful data can be "accrued" when it hasn't been able to be accurately collected in the past 2 decades?  How would mining existing data yield any accurate information when it is incomplete?  And say some university does agree to mine whatever data exists then what?  Is the government going to just agree with the research or are they going to spend the next decade attacking it for being incomplete and/or inaccurate?  What university wants any part of that?

No snark, no sarcasm here at all; honest answers as I see them:

- I'm not meaning, by implication or otherwise, to say that any of this is easy.  I expressly do not believe the answers to our hardest questions are easy, nor should anyone be misled that they are (NOT you, Harmony, I'm thinking of the people in the audience at that debate last night that gave Beto a standing ovation, not because he was in any way "right" but because he merely said something that was outrageous).  I know you know this, so I say this respectfully, but also so that we might be on the same page.
- The same "source" that would pay for the increase licensing and background check requirements, and the enforcement and implementation of ban/buyback programs.   The buyback component of the Australian program cost an estimated $500 million; scaled for population that would be about $6.5 billion; scaled for number of guns that would be about $50 billion.  If I'm reading this correctly, the ENTIRE budget for the CDC (who would presumably be the ones to do this research) is $6.6 billion, of which $1.7 billion is for "Preventing the Leading Causes of Disease, Disability and Death", and of which that, $630 million is for "Injury Prevention and Control".   So this would cost a fraction of the money that we're ready, willing and able to spend "to do something", whereas this would be precise money spent to narrow our focus.   (I can't document this, but I recall reading somewhere that the studies I'm talking about would be on the order of about $3M).  I can't stress enough that this is the process we follow - and have been following for almost 40 years - with environmental hazards.  For each and every groundwater, soil, or air contaminant, a process similar to this one has been followed. 
- There are databases that are relatively complete; there is the FBI, the CDC, the Gun Violence Archive, the Gun Violence Database, the Violence Project, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the LA newspapers assembled a database for a study they did recently.   Now, I'm not that thrilled with private "think tanks" doing the analyses (call me cynical, but the NRA is not the only organization with an agenda), but the information is there. 

I can't answer the question on the government.  I have made no bones about my position on that:  the NRA is not about guns, and the response TO the NRA is not about guns.  They give millions and millions and millions of dollars each election cycle to the political process, and in our partisan, party-driven political culture, a "dollar" given by the NRA nominally for guns is, no doubt, looked at by the Democrats as a dollar for "tariffs, anti-immigration policies, anti-abortion legislation", etc.  It's not a secret that SAN FRANCISCO (at the epi-center of some of the non-border related immigration debate) declared the NRA a "domestic terror organization" and not, say, St. Louis, Baltimore, or Detroit (cities with exceedingly high murder rates).  The "breaking" of the NRA has zero to do with gun violence and everything to do with party politics.   BUT, that breaking is necessary for this type of reform to happen, so we're at an impasse on that, and I can only say that the impasse works both ways.  Ultimately, though, we might see something akin to what happened on the healthcare level; you get a state or a municipality that needs change desperately, is willing to look at hard data and ignore traditional party lines and you get a Romney-care type scenario that can then be extrapolated out (with the usual partisan fan-fare).   

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 758
  • Gender: Female
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2214 on: September 13, 2019, 05:51:01 PM »
- The same "source" that would pay for the increase licensing and background check requirements, and the enforcement and implementation of ban/buyback programs.   The buyback component of the Australian program cost an estimated $500 million; scaled for population that would be about $6.5 billion; scaled for number of guns that would be about $50 billion.  If I'm reading this correctly, the ENTIRE budget for the CDC (who would presumably be the ones to do this research) is $6.6 billion, of which $1.7 billion is for "Preventing the Leading Causes of Disease, Disability and Death", and of which that, $630 million is for "Injury Prevention and Control".   So this would cost a fraction of the money that we're ready, willing and able to spend "to do something", whereas this would be precise money spent to narrow our focus.   (I can't document this, but I recall reading somewhere that the studies I'm talking about would be on the order of about $3M).  I can't stress enough that this is the process we follow - and have been following for almost 40 years - with environmental hazards.  For each and every groundwater, soil, or air contaminant, a process similar to this one has been followed. 
- There are databases that are relatively complete; there is the FBI, the CDC, the Gun Violence Archive, the Gun Violence Database, the Violence Project, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the LA newspapers assembled a database for a study they did recently.   Now, I'm not that thrilled with private "think tanks" doing the analyses (call me cynical, but the NRA is not the only organization with an agenda), but the information is there.

I'm sorry, I'm now confused.  When did we all agree to a gun buy back program?   :huh:

You said - paraphrasing - let the universities like Harvard do the research.  Then you say the CDC should be doing the research (which I wholeheartedly agree with BTW.)  Unfortunately they do not have any funding approved by congress earmarked to do this.  Well the house did, but Mitch continues to stand in the way.  https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/

So which is it?  Universities should research this or government agencies?

And FTR, it may seem like the CDC already has adequate funding to add gun violence research to it's budget.  But I have a strong feeling that every single dollar of that 1.7 billion is already being used to study other leading causes of preventable disease, disability and death.  There have already been significant cuts to the CDC's budget that impacts public health funding.  I'll let you do the Google if you don't believe it.

"There are data bases that are RELATIVELY complete."  Really?  How do you know this?  What does 'relatively' mean in this context?  The CDC has been limited by the Dickey Amendment for decades.  How can their data even objectively be complete?  Then you go on to list 4 other separate entities who may or may not have "complete" data bases and suggest we should just pool the data?  I could be wrong about this, but I don't think just throwing data which may or may not be complete all together in one giant research report is how viable science is done.  I'm no researcher but there are all sorts of variables that need to be controlled for when doing longitudinal research.  And that doesn't even begin to address which particular one of those 5 entities is going to be in charge of compiling all that incomplete data and whether or not those 5 entities would even be willing or able to provide their raw data. 

And yes, nothing worth doing is ever easy.  I was responding to the tone of your post that seemed to suggest we should just leave this research up to the universities.  I felt that was being over-simplistic and unrealistic.  That's why I said it wasn't as easy as you seemed to suggest.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18519
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2215 on: September 14, 2019, 09:38:08 AM »
- The same "source" that would pay for the increase licensing and background check requirements, and the enforcement and implementation of ban/buyback programs.   The buyback component of the Australian program cost an estimated $500 million; scaled for population that would be about $6.5 billion; scaled for number of guns that would be about $50 billion.  If I'm reading this correctly, the ENTIRE budget for the CDC (who would presumably be the ones to do this research) is $6.6 billion, of which $1.7 billion is for "Preventing the Leading Causes of Disease, Disability and Death", and of which that, $630 million is for "Injury Prevention and Control".   So this would cost a fraction of the money that we're ready, willing and able to spend "to do something", whereas this would be precise money spent to narrow our focus.   (I can't document this, but I recall reading somewhere that the studies I'm talking about would be on the order of about $3M).  I can't stress enough that this is the process we follow - and have been following for almost 40 years - with environmental hazards.  For each and every groundwater, soil, or air contaminant, a process similar to this one has been followed. 
- There are databases that are relatively complete; there is the FBI, the CDC, the Gun Violence Archive, the Gun Violence Database, the Violence Project, and if I'm not mistaken, one of the LA newspapers assembled a database for a study they did recently.   Now, I'm not that thrilled with private "think tanks" doing the analyses (call me cynical, but the NRA is not the only organization with an agenda), but the information is there.

I'm sorry, I'm now confused.  When did we all agree to a gun buy back program?   :huh:

No one did, but it was Beto's recommendation (to a standing ovation) and it was a key part of the Australian program (which others here seemed to want to present as a winning formula).   I'm throwing out examples.  I'm sorry if it's confusing (sincerely).  It IS though, and it's a clue that this isn't an easy solution.

Quote
You said - paraphrasing - let the universities like Harvard do the research.  Then you say the CDC should be doing the research (which I wholeheartedly agree with BTW.)  Unfortunately they do not have any funding approved by congress earmarked to do this.  Well the house did, but Mitch continues to stand in the way.  https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gun-violence-research-money/

So which is it?  Universities should research this or government agencies?

Does it matter?  Again, I'm giving examples.  It can be both, it can be either, it can be neither (it can be private think tanks).  The point is, there are options for this.   The NRA has a stranglehold because we LET it have a strangehold.   I see this as a clue, a hint, that the problem isn't the guns per se, or the NRA's position on guns. It's the NRA ITSELF and all that it entails.   (I'm referring to my belief that the NRA is, among other things, a boogeyman for a larger point, a more partisan point that I've stated here before multiple times.)

This is important though, and indicative of the nature of the arguments (generally, not you) in this arena:  to a large degree, they tend to assume the answers before the research is in.   The "Dickey Amendment" - the source of the misinformation that "Congress banned the CDC from investigating gun violence" - doesn't prevent research; it prevents any use of Federal funds in the advocacy of gun control.  But that's a CONCLUSION, and we need the investigation to get there.  It's like you having a headache and your insurance company saying "well, we'll fund your doctor visit, but we're not going to cover the prescriptions if it's a brain tumor", then you saying "ah f*** it, I'm not going to bother with the doctor."   

So, assuming the NRA is so bad (not arguing that), why not find ways around it?  Why not design clever studies?  "Impacts of mass deaths on a community"?   "Adolescent triggers of adult violence"?    When Bush banned the use of Federal funds to create new strains of embryonic stem cells (limiting research to non-embryonic cells and existing embryonic cells), the scientific community found a way around that, and actually advanced science further than it might have been before.  (That's a long, narrowly spaced article; the point is only that I'm not making this up out of whole cloth.).

Quote
And FTR, it may seem like the CDC already has adequate funding to add gun violence research to it's budget.  But I have a strong feeling that every single dollar of that 1.7 billion is already being used to study other leading causes of preventable disease, disability and death.  There have already been significant cuts to the CDC's budget that impacts public health funding.  I'll let you do the Google if you don't believe it.

No need to Google; I'm with you.  I'm not suggesting that they HAVE the funding, I'm suggesting that they should GET the funding and those arguing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to effect gun control - without the data to support it - could broaden their argument to include this.  It's likely lower hanging fruit to fund even tens of millions of dollars in research than to fund hundreds of millions or billions to "try something". 

Quote
"There are data bases that are RELATIVELY complete."  Really?  How do you know this?  What does 'relatively' mean in this context?  The CDC has been limited by the Dickey Amendment for decades.  How can their data even objectively be complete?  Then you go on to list 4 other separate entities who may or may not have "complete" data bases and suggest we should just pool the data?  I could be wrong about this, but I don't think just throwing data which may or may not be complete all together in one giant research report is how viable science is done.  I'm no researcher but there are all sorts of variables that need to be controlled for when doing longitudinal research.  And that doesn't even begin to address which particular one of those 5 entities is going to be in charge of compiling all that incomplete data and whether or not those 5 entities would even be willing or able to provide their raw data. 

I used the ever-increasing number of articles that stem from those databases that purport to have a better look into the issue.  Look, you're arguing the tactics here, and I don't have any beef with you on this.  There will be a stage where the data is collated and confirmed, and gaps identified and a plan in place to fill those gaps.  I'm not suggesting that we're done with research, I'm suggesting that we have the first steps of research in place, and already we're seeing that guns aren't the only and logical conclusion to this.   I think there is the possibility of huge breakthroughs if we can pool our resources and figure out what the later life impacts are of domestic abuse specifically and violence in the home generally.  I think - much like we've seen in air travel security - there is the distinct possibility that we can put layers of protections in (we screen air travel at the time of ticket purchase, at the time of boarding, etc.) that may or may not involve gun control.  For all the perception that I'm Johnny Gunslinger here, it's the opposite.  I have ZERO problem in denying SPECIFIC people a gun - when there is a compelling reason and "due process" (I'm using that term loosely here); my beef is unilaterally impacting 325 million people because we "have to do something". 

Quote
And yes, nothing worth doing is ever easy.  I was responding to the tone of your post that seemed to suggest we should just leave this research up to the universities.  I felt that was being over-simplistic and unrealistic.  That's why I said it wasn't as easy as you seemed to suggest.

I apologize for that tone; it's not what I meant to project.  I'm more in the position that it will be a combined effort: the government, universities, private institutions, pro-gun alliances/think tanks and anti-gun alliances/think tanks.  If it's as important as everyone says (that's not sarcastic; it IS that important) then we should be CRAVING data to help us stop/minimize it as efficiently and as quickly as we can.   (And it's not limited to the United States, by the way; one component would be to incorporate data learned from other jurisdictions, especially those that don't fit neatly into the narrative, such as Switzerland and Australia). 

Harmony, I'm not suggesting you're doing this (in fact, your comments tell me just the opposite) but I would offer that nothing I'm writing should be taken as "black and white" or absolute.  I have zero problem with gun bans, or gun control, IF it is backed by science.  My only point is that this is a multivariable problem and needs to be attacked as such, from multiple angles.   I'm not even absolutely against "gun control" as a "throw stuff against the wall" stop gap, IF it is part of a more comprehensive picture.  The core essence of my argument is that we cannot assume "black" or "white" without more information, and we're doing ourselves - and our children - a disservice by structuring the argument that way.  Swedish Goose, Chris Murphy, Beto O'Rourke, and hundreds (thousands? millions?) of people have their minds made up with almost zero basis for that other than common sense.  And we need more than that.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 09:48:52 AM by Stadler »

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4791
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2216 on: November 14, 2019, 05:35:05 PM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50422956

Another to add to the very long list.