Author Topic: More shootings...are the media creating more?  (Read 122032 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 4174
  • 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: 28826
  • 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

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35197
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
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.)
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • 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

  • I'm so ronery; so sad and ronery
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35197
  • Gender: Male
  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
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.
Fox = drip-feeding dumb people with rage-porn. CNN = drip-feeding smug assholes with moral reassurance.
I'll do my best, but this? The guy's getting Llamathrust.
Happy is the dog that stops and licks his balls.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • 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: 10591
  • Gender: Male
  • Inglourious Basstard
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: 1336
  • 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?
What if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • 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: 1336
  • 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.
What if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • 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: 5436
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.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman


Offline Volante99

  • Posts: 783
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2218 on: June 16, 2020, 07:23:32 PM »
Havenít heard a TON of talk in the way of gun control and how it relates to police killings across the US, most likely because George Floyd wasnít shot.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463213/

Found an interesting study on the link between firearm legislation and police shootings.

Good op ed in the Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/11/no-police-reforms-would-be-complete-without-gun-reforms/

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2219 on: June 17, 2020, 08:39:50 AM »
There are... problems with each of those sources though.

The study:  it clearly says: "Although further research is necessary to determine causality and potential mechanisms, firearm legislation is a potential policy solution for reducing fatal police shootings in the United States."   This undermines the idea (coincidentially perpetuated in the op-ed) that somehow guns are a root of the police violence issue.  Later, in the body of the report, they note that they used legislative scoring taken from the Brady Campaign.  But then they say they changed that scoring: "For instance, universal background check laws receive 11 points, whereas laws prohibiting open carry of firearms receive only 1 point. Because of the somewhat arbitrary nature of the weighting, and consistent with previous research, we removed all weighting in favor of a 1 law = 1 point scoring system."  Maybe not an issue with judging States on their response to crime generally and gun crime specifically, but when looking for CAUSE and CORRELATION, that's a HUGE leap.  For example, now, "Background checks" and "maintaining a duty to retreat" are handled equally.   I don't think I need to spell out that those have RADICALLY different impacts to police shooting.  If I have a DUTY - that has legal ramifications; "duty" means you HAVE to do it, and if you don't you can be held legally liable.  In terms of a police officer being threatened, having a DUTY - a LEGAL OBLIGATION - to retreat as opposed to shoot is a massive sea change from the current scenario, and I shouldn't have to say:  has nothing to do specifically with GUNS.  You would have to retreat whether attacked/armed with a gun, a knife, a frying pan, or a soccer ball.

As for the op-ed, we're all entitled to our opinions.  He has his, I have mine.  I know I have problems with the boldness and confidence with which he says things like "Of course, these incidents can be explained at least in part by a racist tendency to see people of color as more of a threat."  If you use this definition:  "a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another", that's a questionable assertion, since the studies that I'm aware of have clearly not made a connection to "intent".  An innate sense of in-group/out-group (I have cited this research already, within the last five days or so, in the "Racism" thread) is relevant information, but I think there's room to discuss the level to which that is "conscious" and "willful". 

I'll give the guy credit, though (even if it falls on deaf ears):  he did note this:  "American police officers are more likely to die in the line of duty than their counterparts in other rich countries."   That doesn't seem to be all that important in the general discourse though.  Maybe "defunding" will lower that number.

Offline Volante99

  • Posts: 783
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2220 on: June 17, 2020, 10:13:31 AM »
Iím a tiny bit confused; are you saying duty to retreat laws should be given MORE weight or thrown out entirely because itís not overly relevant to the gun discussion? In any event, itís only given 1 point, I canít pull up the tables so I canít really determine how much impact it specifically has on the study but I actually like the 1 to 1 ratio because itís viewing gun legislation on a more macro level. I could see the argument that ďtougherĒ gun laws should be given more weight but that creates a whole new set of problems. The study simply sets out to establish an association between police shootings and gun legislation, and I think it does that.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2221 on: June 17, 2020, 10:27:11 AM »
Iím a tiny bit confused; are you saying duty to retreat laws should be given MORE weight or thrown out entirely because itís not overly relevant to the gun discussion? In any event, itís only given 1 point, I canít pull up the tables so I canít really determine how much impact it specifically has on the study but I actually like the 1 to 1 ratio because itís viewing gun legislation on a more macro level. I could see the argument that ďtougherĒ gun laws should be given more weight but that creates a whole new set of problems. The study simply sets out to establish an association between police shootings and gun legislation, and I think it does that.


But "retreat" isn't "gun legislation".   A cop (or my) duty to retreat in a confrontation is in no way, shape or form tied to my gun ownership or not.   Under U.S. law in most jurisdictions, I can, if licensed, own one or 1,000 guns.  I can even carry them on me in certain instances.  If I get into a scrap with a cop, and I have a duty to retreat - a legal obligation to remove myself from the engagement - then whether I have 0, 1, or all 1,000 guns on me, it in and of itself reduces the chances there will be gunfire in that exchange.   

I'm saying that that alone can account for the study results.  If my DUTY is to "run away" before "shoot", to the point that I automatically go to jail if I don't, that will directly, in the moment, impact the number of killings.   I don't even GET to the point of drawing my weapon, because by not "retreating", I'm already in the wrong.   Compare to, say, background checks, which over all may change the probability of the perp having a gun, but doesn't change the specific chances that any ONE perp will have a gun.  To then over-emphasize that measure - I would even say "mischaracterize" it - as a "gun legislation" - is to over-emphasize the role of "gun legislation" as cause.

Does this make sense yet? 

Offline Volante99

  • Posts: 783
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2222 on: June 17, 2020, 11:12:03 AM »
   

I'm saying that that alone can account for the study results. 

Highly unlikely that duty to retreat laws are having that large of impact here. But I concede your argument of lumping duty to retreat laws in with gun legislation may not be entirely valid. If you want to split hairs we can say the study shows an association in number of gun laws AND duty to retreat laws with lower police shootings. To me, that doesnít completely invalidate the study; but to be fair I understand from your perspective how thatís a problem.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2223 on: June 17, 2020, 11:20:42 AM »
   

I'm saying that that alone can account for the study results. 

Highly unlikely that duty to retreat laws are having that large of impact here. But I concede your argument of lumping duty to retreat laws in with gun legislation may not be entirely valid. If you want to split hairs we can say the study shows an association in number of gun laws AND duty to retreat laws with lower police shootings. To me, that doesnít completely invalidate the study; but to be fair I understand from your perspective how thatís a problem.

Not to pound a dead horse here, but it's like including "diet soda" in with "Schedule 1" narcotics and trying to attribute causes to "illegal drugs".   We CAN quibble about the degree of impact, but I appreciate you acknowledging there are competing viewpoints.  And this is as good a time as any to say, that I think that study DOES have some things we can learn from. 

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2224 on: June 17, 2020, 01:07:34 PM »
So this.....in my eyes.....is a completely justifiable shooting and one that if I were in the same position as this man.....being chased down by a group of protesters and beaten with a skateboard....all the while one of them saying he was 'going to kill me'......I'd have certainly shot as well. Yet, he's still been charged for the shooting. I can't imagine he'd be convicted given what I've read in the article.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8432721/Video-shows-former-Albuquerque-city-council-candidate-whipping-gun-firing-four-shots.html
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32302
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2225 on: June 17, 2020, 01:10:55 PM »
So this.....in my eyes.....is a completely justifiable shooting and one that if I were in the same position as this man.....being chased down by a group of protesters and beaten with a skateboard....all the while one of them saying he was 'going to kill me'......I'd have certainly shot as well. Yet, he's still been charged for the shooting. I can't imagine he'd be convicted given what I've read in the article.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8432721/Video-shows-former-Albuquerque-city-council-candidate-whipping-gun-firing-four-shots.html

Maybe, but they're already in a tussle. Looks like to get the gun away. I'd really have to know what led up to it in the first place.

So again, maybe it's justified. But there's also a possibility there was some bad stuff going on before that video started shooting (no pun intended).
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25832
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2226 on: June 17, 2020, 01:19:09 PM »
So this.....in my eyes.....is a completely justifiable shooting and one that if I were in the same position as this man.....being chased down by a group of protesters and beaten with a skateboard....all the while one of them saying he was 'going to kill me'......I'd have certainly shot as well. Yet, he's still been charged for the shooting. I can't imagine he'd be convicted given what I've read in the article.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8432721/Video-shows-former-Albuquerque-city-council-candidate-whipping-gun-firing-four-shots.html
If you're a civilian you're going to be arrested after shooting somebody. That's just a given, and to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't tell you that in CCW school (assuming MO requires such a thing). Whether or not they hook you up that night, or issue a warrant and allow you to turn yourself in depends on a variety of factors (**race**cough**cough**race**cough). A grand jury may or may not refer the case to trial. In this case I'd bet on them no-billing the guy.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32302
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2227 on: June 17, 2020, 01:22:35 PM »
So apparently there was a longer video but it never loaded for me. I looked around for better videos and saw that prior to being chased he was peacefully being kept away from the statue before he took a woman and threw her down on the sidewalk. So they were chasing him away after he assaulted a person who was just standing in his away.

Again, I'd like to see that longer video that hopefully covers what happened between them trying to chase him away, and then the shorter video posted where he already had his gun out and people were trying to disarm him.

Either way, as Bart pointed out, even if the shooting is justified, he has to answer for it and defend it legally. But I have no doubt that it'll be delayed for a few weeks and then he'll get off. Maybe a little community service.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2228 on: June 17, 2020, 01:28:29 PM »
If you're a civilian you're going to be arrested after shooting somebody. That's just a given, and to be honest, I'm surprised they didn't tell you that in CCW school (assuming MO requires such a thing). Whether or not they hook you up that night, or issue a warrant and allow you to turn yourself in depends on a variety of factors (**race**cough**cough**race**cough). A grand jury may or may not refer the case to trial. In this case I'd bet on them no-billing the guy.

Yeah they do. The tag line in one of the classes I took is that you're looking at $10k once you take your gun out because that's about the running rate for lawyer retainer.

So apparently there was a longer video but it never loaded for me. I looked around for better videos and saw that prior to being chased he was peacefully being kept away from the statue before he took a woman and threw her down on the sidewalk. So they were chasing him away after he assaulted a person who was just standing in his away.

Again, I'd like to see that longer video that hopefully covers what happened between them trying to chase him away, and then the shorter video posted where he already had his gun out and people were trying to disarm him.

Either way, as Bart pointed out, even if the shooting is justified, he has to answer for it and defend it legally. But I have no doubt that it'll be delayed for a few weeks and then he'll get off. Maybe a little community service.


That changes the game if he assaulted someone first. You cannot create a scenario or situation that leads to the shooting. Meaning, if I get road rage and cut a guy off on the highway and he follows me to a gas station...gets out and starts M Fn me and threatening me and I shoot him.....I can't say I feared for my life because I'm the one who started the whole thing.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online Adami

  • Moderator of awesomeness
  • *
  • Posts: 32302
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2229 on: June 17, 2020, 01:29:25 PM »
Yea, the Daily Mail article didn't include any of that, but I found it pretty widely available once I went looking for that longer video.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25832
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2230 on: June 17, 2020, 01:52:09 PM »
That changes the game if he assaulted someone first. You cannot create a scenario or situation that leads to the shooting. Meaning, if I get road rage and cut a guy off on the highway and he follows me to a gas station...gets out and starts M Fn me and threatening me and I shoot him.....I can't say I feared for my life because I'm the one who started the whole thing.
Except in Florida.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 28826
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2231 on: June 17, 2020, 02:32:42 PM »
I don't think that's necessarily true.  I'm not a criminal lawyer, but from what I know, as a general matter (and absent a specific state or local statute) "words" in and of themselves aren't enough.  I can stand in front of you, six inches from your face, and in a calm voice simply repeat "n******" over and over, and if you ultimately take a swing at me, you're in the wrong, UNLESS you can make the case that felt you were in clear and present danger. 

Another example:  if you brake check me, and then I follow you six inches off your bumper for 15 miles to your home, and standing on the sidewalk I berate your driving skills for an hour, then no.  But if I trespass on your property and get in your personal space and make clear and precise threats against your well-being, well, all bets are off. 

I think I get where Gary is coming from with "creating the scenario that leads to the shooting" but that's not cut and dry. 

Online gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 15907
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2232 on: June 17, 2020, 02:35:47 PM »
I think I get where Gary is coming from with "creating the scenario that leads to the shooting" but that's not cut and dry.

Yeah....it's a 'general' thought.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 12641
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm just a man, thrown into existence by the gods
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2233 on: June 18, 2020, 02:48:11 PM »
That Guy also had a can of mace in his hand as he walked up.
He also ran for City Councilor, obviously good reason why he lost. Plus, he's the son of A Former APD Sheriff.

https://twitter.com/_WhyzGuy/status/1272892006424076290?s=19

https://twitter.com/_WhyzGuy/status/1272899488072466434?s=19

https://twitter.com/nick_w_estes/status/1272760127041318913?s=19
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

"We can't rewrite history. We can learn our own history, and share it with other people. While, we learn, from them, their history." -Me,Myself,I

Online El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25832
  • Bad Craziness
Re: More shootings...are the media creating more?
« Reply #2234 on: June 18, 2020, 09:30:34 PM »
Man, that thing's a mess. Unless the shootee dies I don't see Baca doing any time for this, though he'll rack up one helluva legal bill. New Mexico has a first aggressor exception to the self defense law. Once Baca initiated the altercation he forfeited his claim to self defense. However, according to the NM supreme court, he might very well have regained that claim as he clearly tried to disengage from the altercation. He made a legitimate effort to end the confrontation, and that matters.

Frankly, that kind of pisses me off. The reason he disengaged is because he thought, quite correctly, that he was fixing to get his ass beat. Disengaging after a moment of introspection is one thing. Disengaging because the tide suddenly turned on you shouldn't let you off the hook. It'd be like running up and sucker-punching the biggest guy in the bar, and then immediately throwing your hands up and shouting "I give up! I give up!", and then having him arrested for the ensuing beatdown.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson