Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.....
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.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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Wouldn't matter since you obviously have your own bias concerning the global warming conspiracy theory. But that's another topic.
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.
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.
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".
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).
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.
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".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?