What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, the right has no responsibility for the division...

If you say so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Probably because they (CDC) have a history of collecting and reporting only the data that is negative. Those 2 links I posted are examples of that type of reporting.

Given the choice, then, you trust the NRA implicitly?

 

[Aldebaran]

Given the choice, then, you trust the NRA implicitly?

I stand by what I said. The CDC focuses on the negatives stats.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I stand by what I said. The CDC focuses on the negatives stats.

Then say what the NRA you side with focuses on.

 

[Aldebaran]

Then say what the NRA you side with focuses on.

They focus on protecting the right of the people to keep and arm bears.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Go back to post 922 and look at the links I showed you. Those were examples of the skewed numbers (negative "statistics" only) that are shown when the CDC does their studies. Also, you can refer to the following link again: Why we can't trust the CDC with gun research

Chris Cox...isn't he a lobbyist for the NRA? Yeah....right there at the bottom of the link you just posted: "Chris Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action."

Huh. So let me get this straight: you think a lobbyist for the NRA (the same organization that pushed the legislation to make sure the CDC couldn't even STUDY gun statistics) is an unbiased source of information.

Well. Can't argue with that logic I guess.

 

[Obliquinaut]

My mistake. I meant to say, "I'm glad you're willing to at least admit that the idea of "more guns DOES NOT mean more crime". That seemed to be the case based on what you were saying.

Ummm, I didn't say that. I said the data available did NOT link the decrease in crime to more guns. But that there were still unaccounted variables in the data. So perhaps there might be something. But it was in no way suggested by myself or the article as a necessary factor.

This is where people like you with no training in statistics or science seem to drop the ball. You mistake my acceptance of "as-yet-unexplained-variance" as somehow meaning I agree with your point! Don't worry a lot of folks of limited education in science and statistics make that mistake.

While I agree that you could be right I don't see any reason to believe you ARE right. Just like you could have an education but I assume there is no reason to believe you have any training in statistics or science.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Given the choice, then, you trust the NRA implicitly?

CLEARLY. But I doubt very highly that he does. I suspect that if his town was to show up as a hot-spot for Ebola (as an example) he'd line up with everyone else to get help from the CDC when they came to town. But when it comes to something that he doesn't like the CDC to do, suddenly the world is best explained by gun lobbyists like Chris Cox. And the CDC is suddenly bad.

 

[Aldebaran]

Chris Cox...isn't he a lobbyist for the NRA? Yeah....right there at the bottom of the link you just posted: "Chris Cox is the executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action."

Huh. So let me get this straight: you think a lobbyist for the NRA (the same organization that pushed the legislation to make sure the CDC couldn't even STUDY gun statistics) is an unbiased source of information.

Well. Can't argue with that logic I guess.

Well, you did ask about why they pushed the for the legislation in question. I simply gave you a link to the information you asked for. Remember.....

And again: why did the NRA push legislation that would make it ILLEGAL for the CDC to study gun deaths and injuries?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I stand by what I said. The CDC focuses on the negatives stats.

But it is quite clear you yourself don't really understand statistics in general...so how do you come to trust the one group that wanted to make it illegal to even gather statistics?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Well, you did ask about why they pushed the for the legislation in question. I simply gave you a link to the information you asked for. Remember.....

So you implicitly trust the group that wanted to make sure the data wasn't even collected.

That's the key: you aren't supporting a different interpretation of the data you are supporting the act of NOT EVEN ALLOWING THE DATA TO BE GATHERED.

Truth will out....unless we aren't allowed to even investigate it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ummm, I didn't say that. I said the data available did NOT link the decrease in crime to more guns. But that there were still unaccounted variables in the data. So perhaps there might be something. But it was in no way suggested by myself or the article as a necessary factor.

This is where people like you with no training in statistics or science seem to drop the ball. You mistake my acceptance of "as-yet-unexplained-variance" as somehow meaning I agree with your point! Don't worry a lot of folks of limited education make that mistake.

While I agree that you could be right I don't see any reason to believe you ARE right. Just like you could have an education but I assume there is no reason to believe you have any training in statistics or science.

Then could we just leave it be that people have the right to keep and bear arms and that you and I as individuals have the individual right to make the choice whether to do so or not?

 

[Obliquinaut]

They focus on protecting the right of the people to keep and arm bears.

And they side with NOT LOOKING AT THE DATA. No matter what the data says, the NRA does not want anyone to investigate the data.

 

[Aldebaran]

CLEARLY. But I doubt very highly that he does. I suspect that if his town was to show up as a hot-spot for Ebola (as an example) he'd line up with everyone else to get help from the CDC when they came to town. But when it comes to something that he doesn't like the CDC to do, suddenly the world is best explained by gun lobbyists like Chris Cox. And the CDC is suddenly bad.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) does a better job at dealing with diseases rather than objects. Oh, I know, there are people who like to label guns as a disease. Given enough time, they'll label just about anything they don't like as a disease, and any opinion they don't like as a symptom of a psychological disorder. That's what happens when things get political.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you implicitly trust the group that wanted to make sure the data wasn't even collected.

That's the key: you aren't supporting a different interpretation of the data you are supporting the act of NOT EVEN ALLOWING THE DATA TO BE GATHERED.

Truth will out....unless we aren't allowed to even investigate it.

Gun data has been collected for decades already. You can use Google to find a vast amount of it. But it doesn't take statistics to tell me that using good judgment when choosing which gun to own, how to use it, how to store it, who to let know about it, and when is a good time to use/not use it in a defensive situation puts me ahead of any "statistics" gathered by a government entity.

 

[Aldebaran]

And they side with NOT LOOKING AT THE DATA. No matter what the data says, the NRA does not want anyone to investigate the data.

See again the links I gave you in post #922. Plenty of the kind of negative statistics the Left likes people to look at. It doesn't take the CDC to come up with more of the same.

 

[Obliquinaut]

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) does a better job at dealing with diseases rather than objects.

This is a silly point. We are talking about calculating statistics.

 

[Aldebaran]

This is a silly point. We are talking about calculating statistics.

What does the CDC have to do with calculating statistics about firearms? Let them stick to how many people contract and then survive/die from diseases. That's what they are there for. Oh yeah, and coming up with cures for those diseases.
Mission, Role and Pledge | About | CDC

 

[Obliquinaut]

What does the CDC have to do with calculating statistics about firearms? Let them stick to how many people contract and then survive/die from diseases. That's what they are there for. Oh yeah, and coming up with cures for those diseases.
Mission, Role and Pledge | About | CDC

I must clarify a point: apparently the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly make it illegal for the CDC to collect the data, but they cannot advocate for gun control. Meaning that if the data does show that guns are a cause for harm to people they would be unable to suggest any form of gun control. This effectively limits the researchers ability to draw any other conclusion but the NRA's preferred conclusions.

As to the role the CDC plays. The very first one on the list you linked to is:

"Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats"

I'd say dying from gunshot wounds is a health threat.

#2: "Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans"

(Same thing)

#4: "Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment"

In fact, so far only ONE has even mentioned "disease".

The CDC is America's public health authority. But, either way, the NRA has successfully hampered their abilities to draw a conclusion that the NRA doesn't want to see, so it's all good.

I suggest next time a health threat of any form hits your town or your workplace, you call the NRA for help. See how that goes.

 

[Aldebaran]

I must clarify a point: apparently the Dickey Amendment does not explicitly make it illegal for the CDC to collect the data, but they cannot advocate for gun control. Meaning that if the data does show that guns are a cause for harm to people they would be unable to suggest any form of gun control. This effectively limits the researchers ability to draw any other conclusion but the NRA's preferred conclusions.

As to the role the CDC plays. The very first one on the list you linked to is:

"Detecting and responding to new and emerging health threats"

I'd say dying from gunshot wounds is a health threat.

#2: "Tackling the biggest health problems causing death and disability for Americans"

(Same thing)

#4: "Promoting healthy and safe behaviors, communities and environment"

In fact, so far only ONE has even mentioned "disease".

The CDC is America's public health authority. But, either way, the NRA has successfully hampered their abilities to draw a conclusion that the NRA doesn't want to see, so it's all good.

Like I said back in post #954:

Oh, I know, there are people who like to label guns as a disease. Given enough time, they'll label just about anything they don't like as a disease, and any opinion they don't like as a symptom of a psychological disorder. That's what happens when things get political.

Next, they'll say terrorism is a disease. If they do that, maybe they'll want their own military with guns so they can combat the disease of terrorism. Oh, but then they'd be using a disease to fight a disease.

I suggest next time a health threat of any form hits your town or your workplace, you call the NRA for help. See how that goes.

You pretty much just made my point. Calling the NRA about a health threat makes as much sense as calling the CDC when a mass shooter is shooting up a school. Yet some people seem to want the CDC to be the authority on guns.