What do we do to prevent another Las Vegas?

[TLK Valentine]

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 the information is that the NRA's lobbyist claimed that the CDC skews statistics.

 

[Drifter Kybe Scythe Kane]

Or Orlando? Or San Bernardino? Or Columbine? Or Newtown?

Political action? Legal action? Social action? Personal action?

Or should we even bother? Do we simply resign ourselves to going through these motions again in another 6 months or so? Or are we counting on these kinds of incidents to just go away?

Thoughts?

PeachyKeane-first of all, i can't stress enough in that god plays favorites with all of his creations. Life is sad sometimes when you look at these news but no one in the world is a piece of human trash to god. Now to answer your question...i think it is social action because we have to understand that we must unite and have special treatment for each other whether it is just simply sharing or whatever for example.
god will give us good karma for those who sees that destruction has no value and it will become contagious to do what we need to do to prevent these horrible events and we will look back at these times as stupid violence.

 

[SkyWriting]

Or Orlando? Or San Bernardino? Or Columbine? Or Newtown?
Political action? Legal action? Social action? Personal action?
Or should we even bother? Do we simply resign ourselves to going through these motions again in another 6 months or so? Or are we counting on these kinds of incidents to just go away?
Thoughts?

Which incidents? News stories?
More than 800 people have been shot in America since Las Vegas
Three died in another part of Las Vegas, that day.

 

[Aldebaran]

And the information is that the NRA's lobbyist claimed that the CDC skews statistics.

Correct. I don't know what the problem is with that.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Correct. I don't know what the problem is with that.

It shows your preferred bias. If you think the NRA who helped quash any open discussion of gun violence is somehow an unbaised source of information about the CDC then you show a bias.

If the truth is to be found it must be found through open investigation of the numbers and statistics in an ongoing format, and no one must be punished for the conclusions either way.

Right now the numbers don't look good for the pro-gun group. This is why you yourself decree that statistics don't explain things. That is the argument EVERYONE uses when the statistics don't support their bias! I've seen it a million times! I've even done it myself! It's easier when one doesn't understand why statistics exist. It is even easier when one hopes that statistics don't explain anything.

Statistics are not perfect...anyone who works with them on a daily basis knows that. What statistics do is quantify and help eliminate "bias" and potential inferential error.

If the "truth" is out there then surely the data will show it. But it can't show it unless it can be studied and it won't be studied if the people who study the numbers are told that if they draw the conclusion one specific side doesn't want to hear they will lose their livelihood.

It's part and parcel of the war on science and education. The gun front is just another area where people are sold a bill of goods and the people selling you on it hope (rightfully so, obviously) that you won't understand what the numbers say and you don't think you use statistics every day.

You are being played. The people playing you know much more than you do and they want to keep it that way.

 

[Aldebaran]

It shows your preferred bias. If you think the NRA who helped quash any open discussion of gun violence is somehow an unbaised source of information about the CDC then you show a bias.

I never said they (the NRA) weren't biased. I was simply showing you how the statistics that are being used, and have been used by the CDC are very much biased.

If the truth is to be found it must be found through open investigation of the numbers and statistics in an ongoing format, and no one must be punished for the conclusions either way.

Fine. Then numbers other than the ones that help make a case against gun ownership need to be included as well. I've already showed you multiple times how that isn't being done.

Right now the numbers don't look good for the pro-gun group. This is why you yourself decree that statistics don't explain things. That is the argument EVERYONE uses when the statistics don't support their bias! I've seen it a million times! I've even done it myself! It's easier when one doesn't understand why statistics exist. It is even easier when one hopes that statistics don't explain anything.

That's hardly surprising! Use only numbers that support the narrative of anti-gun groups, and then the "numbers" seem to support their cause.

Statistics are not perfect...anyone who works with them on a daily basis knows that. What statistics do is quantify and help eliminate "bias" and potential inferential error.

Only if you include ALL the numbers, and not just the ones that support the anti-gun narrative. It's very simple, and honest. Not too much to ask for.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Fine. Then numbers other than the ones that help make a case against gun ownership need to be included as well. I've already showed you multiple times how that isn't being done.

And you are safe for now because the NRA has effectively kept any further research from being done. The numbers will NOT be collected if people who study it are told that if they draw the wrong conclusion they will lose their livelihood. Bravo!

Only if you include ALL the numbers, and not just the ones that support the anti-gun narrative. It's very simple, and honest. Not too much to ask for.

Then why does the NRA not want anyone drawing any conclusion other than their favorite one? It's not like NRA pushed an amendment that would ensure that a PROPER conclusion was drawn....they pushed the Dickey amendment which effectively says that any findings that would go AGAINST the NRA are not allowed by law (as that would lead to promotion of gun control).

Are you scared of the numbers? Remember: the NRA inflated the number of "Good guy with a gun" statistics. If that's the case I'm thinking perhaps your unbiased source of information (NRA) needs to be seriously considered quite a bad source of information. What else have they hidden from you? Or does that bit of truth not bother you?

 

[Obliquinaut]

I never said they (the NRA) weren't biased. I was simply showing you how the statistics that are being used, and have been used by the CDC are very much biased.

You know, after reading the Chris Cox article you linked to I noted it didn't contain ONE SINGLE REFERENCE SUPPORTING ANY (ANY) OF THE CLAIMS IT MADE ABOUT CDC BIAS.


NOT. ONE. SINGLE. SHRED. OF. SUPPORTING. EVIDENCE.

Wow.

Well and you think Mr. Cox is not biased? You think he made a solid case there? Wow.

 

[Aldebaran]

And you are safe for now because the NRA has effectively kept any further research from being done. The numbers will NOT be collected if people who study it are told that if they draw the wrong conclusion they will lose their livelihood. Bravo!

Good! If the CDC's biased research is blocked, we won't have to pay for them to do another one of their "studies" using only the numbers that support their own anti-gun narrative.

Then why does the NRA not want anyone drawing any conclusion other than their favorite one? It's not like NRA pushed an amendment that would ensure that a PROPER conclusion was drawn....they pushed the Dickey amendment which effectively says that any findings that would go AGAINST the NRA are not allowed by law (as that would lead to promotion of gun control).

Perhaps the CDC has eroded the trust of the NRA or anyone else who wants accurate information?

Are you scared of the numbers? Remember: the NRA inflated the number of "Good guy with a gun" statistics. If that's the case I'm thinking perhaps your unbiased source of information (NRA) needs to be seriously considered quite a bad source of information. What else have they hidden from you? Or does that bit of truth not bother you?

The NRA isn't a government entity funded by taxpayer dollars.
BTW, if you don't think a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun, then don't bother calling the police if you see an active shooter in a school, mall, hotel, etc. because they might use guns to stop the shooter.

 

[Aldebaran]

You know, after reading the Chris Cox article you linked to I noted it didn't contain ONE SINGLE REFERENCE SUPPORTING ANY (ANY) OF THE CLAIMS IT MADE ABOUT CDC BIAS.


NOT. ONE. SINGLE. SHRED. OF. SUPPORTING. EVIDENCE.

Wow.

Well and you think Mr. Cox is not biased? You think he made a solid case there? Wow.

Calm down and read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ot-receive-gun-research-funding/#34f315a2282d

It explains everything better than I can.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Calm down and read this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...ot-receive-gun-research-funding/#34f315a2282d

It explains everything better than I can.

Ummm, but that isn't the original post you quoted. Sounds like you realized how potentially bad the data was you were relying on that you had to run out and find something (anything) that would support your position.

Huh.

And now you're giving me another opinion piece by a CLIMATE SKEPTIC???? C'mon! This is hilarious! Can you find ANYONE that isn't somehow biased on the Right? Just ANYONE?

I'll read this piece when I have time. Not enough time in the day to explain science to people like you AND read your favorite stuff.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ummm, but that isn't the original post you quoted. Sounds like you realized how potentially bad the data was you were relying on that you had to run out and find something (anything) that would support your position.

I thought you wanted to hear another view of the same position. I was simply showing you that there are other sources than the NRA that are saying the same thing.

And now you're giving me another opinion piece by a CLIMATE SKEPTIC???? C'mon! This is hilarious! Can you find ANYONE that isn't somehow biased on the Right? Just ANYONE?

We're not discussing climate, just as we're not discussing diseases. We're talking about guns. I'm sorry if I can't find an anti-gun source that supports gun ownership.

I'll read this piece when I have time. Not enough time in the day to explain science to people like you AND read your favorite stuff.

Whenever you have the time. But it's rather telling that you bashed the article just a moment ago and now are admitting to not even having read it.

 

[Obliquinaut]

We're not discussing climate, just as we're not discussing diseases. We're talking about guns. I'm sorry if I can't find an anti-gun source that supports gun ownership.

So you take the word of a "climate skeptic" (who does climate skepticism as part of his job) but you won't accept the CDC on the topic?

Bias much?

Whenever you have the time. But it's rather telling that you bashed the article just a moment ago and now are admitting to not even having read it.

I don't have time to read all the biased non-science sources you dig up. Sorry. I'm too busy actually paying attention to the data.

 

[Obliquinaut]

I thought you wanted to hear another view of the same position. I was simply showing you that there are other sources than the NRA that are saying the same thing.



We're not discussing climate, just as we're not discussing diseases. We're talking about guns. I'm sorry if I can't find an anti-gun source that supports gun ownership.



Whenever you have the time. But it's rather telling that you bashed the article just a moment ago and now are admitting to not even having read it.

From your article by the climate skeptic:

"There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "

Well, OBVIOUSLY they must have had it out for guns from the start! This is followed by YET ANOTHER UNSOURCED STATEMENT from the CDC. We have no context for why it was said or by whom.

When they do get around to citing a researcher they got his name wrong! LOL. "Bordura"...it's Bordua. At least it has a link to a detailed source. Not necessarily the Bordua and Cowan article...that would be too hard for most Forbes readers to understand. It probably has statistics and numbers.

Oh wait....why would you be interested in statistics? I know! If they support your presumptions you like stats I bet!

The funny thing is: even on your link's links to the description of the Bordua research all the links to the Bordua findings are dead links! I don't see any actual peer-reviewed article by Bordua and Cowan.

All I see is your links to various articles telling me what Bordua and Cowan find yet I can't find Bordua and Cowan's actual research!

The problem is you see, I've made my living as a professional researcher. I care about the data. Not necessarily what a potentially biased source tells me about the data.

IF the data Bordua and Cowan collected supports the stated findings then, fine, definitely pour tons of money into another unbiased third party. But don't EVER put wording in that says that a particular outcome will be illegal.

You should learn to value the data more than just the reporting. But it will require you actually do more work than just finding your favorite outlets that support your conclusion.

 

[Aldebaran]

So you take the word of a "climate skeptic" (who does climate skepticism as part of his job) but you won't accept the CDC on the topic?

Bias much?

Wouldn't matter since you obviously have your own bias concerning the global warming conspiracy theory. But that's another topic.

I don't have time to read all the biased non-science sources you dig up. Sorry. I'm too busy actually paying attention to the data.

All that after I provided you with what you asked for. If your mind isn't open to ALL information on the subject, then don't claim to want the facts. I'm not going to just tell you what you want to hear.

 

[Aldebaran]

From your article by the climate skeptic:

"There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "

Well, OBVIOUSLY they must have had it out for guns from the start! This is followed by YET ANOTHER UNSOURCED STATEMENT from the CDC. We have no context for why it was said or by whom.

When they do get around to citing a researcher they got his name wrong! LOL. "Bordura"...it's Bordua. At least it has a link to a detailed source. Not necessarily the Bordua and Cowan article...that would be too hard for most Forbes readers to understand. It probably has statistics and numbers.

Oh wait....why would you be interested in statistics? I know! If they support your presumptions you like stats I bet!

The funny thing is: even on your link's links to the description of the Bordua research all the links to the Bordua findings are dead links! I don't see any actual peer-reviewed article by Bordua and Cowan.

All I see is your links to various articles telling me what Bordua and Cowan find yet I can't find Bordua and Cowan's actual research!

The problem is you see, I've made my living as a professional researcher. I care about the data. Not necessarily what a potentially biased source tells me about the data.

IF the data Bordua and Cowan collected supports the stated findings then, fine, definitely pour tons of money into another unbiased third party. But don't EVER put wording in that says that a particular outcome will be illegal.

You should learn to value the data more than just the reporting. But it will require you actually do more work than just finding your favorite outlets that support your conclusion.

Do you only read what you want to read? How about the reasons they gave that you don't like?

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

I think this section alone pretty much sums it up.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Wouldn't matter since you obviously have your own bias concerning the global warming conspiracy theory. But that's another topic.

Well, I do have a PhD in geology and 20+ years of work as a research chemist, so I'm willing to assume my bias is probably more informed than one who would call it a "global warming conspiracy".

All that after I provided you with what you asked for.

You provided no actual links to the data supporting your position. You don't seem to understand that key factor. You keep finding sources that only describe the research (sometimes not even citing the sources).

If your mind isn't open to ALL information on the subject, then don't claim to want the facts. I'm not going to just tell you what you want to hear.

LOL. Look, you don't make your living doing research (obviously). I do. I have learned to be quite selective about taking just any bit of information without context as somehow supporting my position.

Oh sure I'm prone to it once in a while and often I get burned for the effort. I'd be willing to seriously consider the research that is discussed in the links you provide, but unlike you I would actually like to see the DATA. Not just someone's word for it.

That is the problem those of us who do research for a living deal with.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Do you only read what you want to read? How about the reasons they gave that you don't like?

I'm reading all the stuff you put forth. And it doesn't seem like you prefer to look at stuff with actual citations that can be traced back. But that's the difference between us: you don't do research for a living and so any "information" is just as good as any other so long as you like it.

My dog likes pretty much everything I put on the floor for him. I can't say I'm quite as "accepting".

Ten senators who strongly supported the CDC gun research funding ban put their reasons in writing: “This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America…Funding redundant research initiatives, particularly those which are driven by a social-policy agenda, simply does not make sense.”

I think this section alone pretty much sums it up.

Wow. Really? I see no real context there. Which senators? What is their funding source? What was their position on the research before it kept coming back showing that more guns = more danger for Americans?

See? You don't seem to much care where the information you get comes from or its context!

This is just sloppy. Really, really sloppy.

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, I do have a PhD in geology and 20+ years of work as a research chemist, so I'm willing to assume my bias is probably more informed than one who would call it a "global warming conspiracy".

Very condescending. Not surprising to see that though.

You provided no actual links to the data supporting your position. You don't seem to understand that key factor. You keep finding sources that only describe the research (sometimes not even citing the sources).

I suppose you could go back to post #922 where I gave instances where only the negative stats are even mentioned. Those might be more in line with what you want to hear and base your opinions on. Any other numbers are obviously "biased" in your opinion, so you don't want to consider those.

LOL. Look, you don't make your living doing research (obviously). I do. I have learned to be quite selective about taking just any bit of information without context as somehow supporting my position.

Oh sure I'm prone to it once in a while and often I get burned for the effort. I'd be willing to seriously consider the research that is discussed in the links you provide, but unlike you I would actually like to see the DATA. Not just someone's word for it.

That is the problem those of us who do research for a living deal with.

It sounds like you're the kind of person who needs someone else's numbers to make decisions. That's fine. Computers and other machines work that way too. I prefer to use common sense. If there's any doubt, I'll take a look at data that includes ALL the numbers.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm reading all the stuff you put forth. And it doesn't seem like you prefer to look at stuff with actual citations that can be traced back. But that's the difference between us: you don't do research for a living and so any "information" is just as good as any other so long as you like it.

My dog likes pretty much everything I put on the floor for him. I can't say I'm quite as "accepting".

Is there any information you'd like to put out there to be scrutinized? You seem to like faulting whatever I show you. Let's see what you have.