Gun Violence

[57Brave]

somehow or other it always comes back to abortion.
talk about emotional

do you have children ?
school age children are practicing hiding from shooters with war weapons and you are obviously ok with that.
For a critical thinker, that seems very very short sighted

So let me ask again, do you have children ?
Will you contribute to the gofundme?
as in, put your money where your mouth is


https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG...obileSet=false



apple meet orange

[Krgrecw]

Obviously, nothing prevents any of us from caring about both. It's not as if action on one prevents action on the other.

They do. There’s a reason that emotions shouldn’t be and can’t be considered when interrupting the law.

[57Brave]

I'm not sure how it is viewed as being emotional over a 17 month old child getting randomly shot in the face.
Or for that matter people being gunned down shopping at Wal-Mart

That is about as feet on the ground as it gets

[sturg33]

somehow or other it always comes back to abortion.
talk about emotional

do you have children ?
school age children are practicing hiding from shooters with war weapons and you are obviously ok with that.
For a critical thinker, that seems very very short sighted

So let me ask again, do you have children ?
Will you contribute to the gofundme?
as in, put your money where your mouth is


https://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/ACOG...obileSet=false



apple meet orange

I havent donated. I hope you have. Bc that's where your mouth is.

[57Brave]

taking a page from your book why would one expect me to pay for your miscalculation.
which is kinda the point

we all are paying
////////

again, do you have children ?

[thethe]

Hard to imagine this could actually be true

[striker42]

The fight against gun violence and the fight for gun control are not the same thing.

I don't think there are many out there who think there should be more gun violence. The six million dollar question is how do we effectively prevent it.

Any approach to the stop of gun violence needs to be evidence based. We shouldn't be pushing solutions because they match our ideology, whether that's gun control or arming more people. We need to push solutions because there's evidence they would be effective addressing the problem.

This is why I think the roadblocks preventing the CDC from researching the problem is absolutely stupid. There's no issue so dangerous it can't be studied. Right now we just have everyone screaming for their solution with no evidence their solution would work.

[nsacpi]

The fight against gun violence and the fight for gun control are not the same thing.

I don't think there are many out there who think there should be more gun violence. The six million dollar question is how do we effectively prevent it.

Any approach to the stop of gun violence needs to be evidence based. We shouldn't be pushing solutions because they match our ideology, whether that's gun control or arming more people. We need to push solutions because there's evidence they would be effective addressing the problem.

This is why I think the roadblocks preventing the CDC from researching the problem is absolutely stupid. There's no issue so dangerous it can't be studied. Right now we just have everyone screaming for their solution with no evidence their solution would work.

they are not the same...but there is a correlation between per capita gun deaths and per capita gun ownership...it doesnt harm our ability to move forward in a constructive manner to acknowledge this little fact

[striker42]

they are not the same...but there is a correlation between per capita gun deaths and per capita gun ownership...it doesnt harm our ability to move forward in a constructive manner to acknowledge this little fact

Correlations can be acknowledged. Acting on correlations can be dangerous.

For example, it's possible that a higher number of gun deaths drives up gun ownership. People in fear of being at the mercy of a gun carrying criminal may seek to arm themselves. If this is what is happening, gun deaths may be the cause of gun ownership, not the other way around. For the record, I'm not saying this is the case, just a possible explanation of the correlation.

Additionally not all gun control is equal. There's very good evidence that extreme gun control (see UK) can reduce the number of gun deaths. The evidence is not as strong that lesser gun control measures are effective. So a country with an extremely low per capita gun ownership may see extremely low gun violence while a more modest decrease in gun ownership may have very little impact on gun violence.

This is why this stuff needs to be studied. Imagine going to a doctor for an infection and the doctor gives you a bottle of antibiotics that were never studied for effectiveness or side effects but the doctor tells you he feels like it should help you.

That's where were at now. We have people advocating our country take action when there has been insufficient research into the efficacy of the proposed solutions or what other problems those solutions may cause.

[nsacpi]

Correlations can be acknowledged. Acting on correlations can be dangerous.

For example, it's possible that a higher number of gun deaths drives up gun ownership. People in fear of being at the mercy of a gun carrying criminal may seek to arm themselves. If this is what is happening, gun deaths may be the cause of gun ownership, not the other way around. For the record, I'm not saying this is the case, just a possible explanation of the correlation.

Additionally not all gun control is equal. There's very good evidence that extreme gun control (see UK) can reduce the number of gun deaths. The evidence is not as strong that lesser gun control measures are effective. So a country with an extremely low per capita gun ownership may see extremely low gun violence while a more modest decrease in gun ownership may have very little impact on gun violence.

This is why this stuff needs to be studied. Imagine going to a doctor for an infection and the doctor gives you a bottle of antibiotics that were never studied for effectiveness or side effects but the doctor tells you he feels like it should help you.

That's where were at now. We have people advocating our country take action when there has been insufficient research into the efficacy of the proposed solutions or what other problems those solutions may cause.

We have a bunch of natural experiments from 50 states and many countries to study and draw conclusions from. And some pretty careful analysis already exists.

[57Brave]

A call for more research as Tucker Carlson adds marijuana into the stew.

Columbine was over 20 years ago

[striker42]

We have a bunch of natural experiments from 50 states and many countries to study and draw conclusions from. And some pretty careful analysis already exists.

The analyses are a little all over the place. You have studies were funded by special interest groups which unsurprisingly support their point of view. You have good studies that are too small in scope to really draw great conclusions from.

Ultimately a CDC study looking at underlying causes and effective solutions is extremely important. You have some Dems pushing for funding for such a study but there's little traction for it as it's lost in all the noise.

Also, while state laws give some data points, there can be big differences between state and national laws in terms of effectiveness.

[striker42]

A call for more research as Tucker Carlson adds marijuana into the stew.

Columbine was over 20 years ago

With Columbine being 20 years ago, there should be plenty of data to look at.

Right now people are advocating policy based on dogma, not on evidence. For something like reducing gun violence, that's asinine.

[nsacpi]

The analyses are a little all over the place. You have studies were funded by special interest groups which unsurprisingly support their point of view. You have good studies that are too small in scope to really draw great conclusions from.

Ultimately a CDC study looking at underlying causes and effective solutions is extremely important. You have some Dems pushing for funding for such a study but there's little traction for it as it's lost in all the noise.

Also, while state laws give some data points, there can be big differences between state and national laws in terms of effectiveness.

my small contribution

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1na...bIHDmWDfJFMF7K

[nsacpi]

some indications of mental illness there

[57Brave]

With Columbine being 20 years ago, there should be plenty of data to look at.

Right now people are advocating policy based on dogma, not on evidence. For something like reducing gun violence, that's asinine.

There is reams of data
I wouldn't say dogma as much as when researched data is presented people like Carlson muddy the waters and stall with nonsense.

So much time is spent refuting scare crows like mental health,video games and now marijuana
That by the time research makes it to a hearing it has been so marginalized

Much like the tactics of Trump regarding his indiscretions
..............

and once data is presented it is then time to argue it's validity after stigmatizing the character of the source.

[striker42]

There is reams of data
I wouldn't say dogma as much as when researched data is presented people like Carlson muddy the waters and stall with nonsense.

So much time is spent refuting scare crows like mental health,video games and now marijuana
That by the time research makes it to a hearing it has been so marginalized

Much like the tactics of Trump regarding his indiscretions
..............

and once data is presented it is then time to argue it's validity after stigmatizing the character of the source.

There's recent research that shows background checks are effective at reducing gun deaths but that banning types of guns (e.g. assault weapons bans) has absolutely no impact on gun deaths. Does that prevent people on the left from screaming for assault weapons bans? Of course not. Does the evidence make gun rights people more amenable to universal background checks? Nope.

It's dogmatic. The reactions you see are the result of cognitive dissonance.

Personally, I want to see the CDC given a chunk of money to dive into the problem to study every aspect with the sole mandate being to find out what works. I think that's the wisest course.

I have no expectation that people will ever put aside their dogma though. If the conclusions are not what someone wants, then they'll just attack the study.

[goldfly]

He couldn’t pass a background check

But lucky for him he went with a private seller


This country is so stupid

[sturg33]

He couldn’t pass a background check

But lucky for him he went with a private seller


This country is so stupid

So uh... how does universal background check stop this from happening?

[57Brave]

a) There's recent research that shows background checks are effective at reducing gun deaths but that banning types of guns (e.g. assault weapons bans) has absolutely no impact on gun deaths. Does that prevent people on the left from screaming for assault weapons bans? Of course not. Does the evidence make gun rights people more amenable to universal background checks? Nope.

b) It's dogmatic. The reactions you see are the result of cognitive dissonance.

c) Personally, I want to see the CDC given a chunk of money to dive into the problem to study every aspect with the sole mandate being to find out what works. I think that's the wisest course.

d) I have no expectation that people will ever put aside their dogma though. If the conclusions are not what someone wants, then they'll just attack the study.

a) of course - when mass shootings are included with overall gun deaths-be they gang murders, marital disputes,suicides, drunken arguments
then again there is Japan -Great Britain- to name two who have weapon bans that seem to be working quite well

b) you seem to be using the term "dogma" an awful lot. Kinda the way some use "socialism" or in olden days "liberal". I
usually relate the term with religion. I personally don't equate public policy in terms of spirituality. The other word might have used "hysteria"
You can do better

c) we agree, let's wonder together what happened . Speaking of "dogma"

d) well, there is that word again
.....................

I thought you meant to discuss policy before throwing around Carlsonesque dog whistles