|
I'm not crazy, right? Lejackle was probated for one week starting yesterday. Thanks, cloud computing!
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:05 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:04 |
|
LeJackal posted:I guess you didn't actually read the part where the words promote and advocate were used. Of course some research on firearms exists. The CDC was allowed to finally begin research again but their funding for the research project was gutted. This is really simple. They are effectively, again, banning the research take place. There is no reason for this other than they are afraid of what the research might find. Furthermore your post still doesn't indicate that the research was done by an advocacy group. Just because the summation (written by the majority who ney'd it) laid that claim does not add validity to it. You have literally disproved nothing. Great job! edit: Boy oh boy oh I sure wonder who penned that "description of the motion"
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:07 |
|
Knifegrab posted:Not going to comment on anything else in that post? The vote was on a motion to "strike general provision prohibiting HHS funds from being used to advocate or promote gun control." That's the vote all those articles are referring to, and they're representing it incorrectly. The language in the 1996 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill was: "...none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." There isn't any ban on research, but people in favor of gun control keep framing the ban on advocacy and the refusal to appropriate government money for their pet cause as a ban on research.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:09 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Uh, what? The screenshot he posted was from this list of votes. Lol nope, what that means is if the CDC does a study and finds that promoting gun-control would lead to better public health/safety, then they are not allowed to allocate funds for it. Therefore they cannot research anything because they can't be sure the results wouldn't advocate that.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:11 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, as I mentioned earlier, explosives are inherently dangerous in a way that guns are not. Also, the adjudication criteria for employees of explosives-licensed companies on the form 5400.28 are more or less the same as the adjudication criteria on the form 4473 for buying firearms. In fact, the criteria for buying firearms is more strict, since the explosives form doesn't ask about domestic violence. So it looks like you got your wish, and buying guns is subject to the same level of scrutiny as handling explosives. Oh. Oh! You think these items are regulated the same, no, that firearms are regulated more strictly and you're fine with that. Well okay, requiring gun purchasers to be on a federal registry with an industrial license or the agent of someone who is, well that's far stricter than anything I'd support. I think hunters and hobbyists should still be able to buy guns like they can in European countries, but okay if you say so I'm willing to try it out.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:14 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Uh, what? The screenshot he posted was from this list of votes. Huh, weird that the gun lobby doesn't want any funding for research on gun violence. It must be because they're so confident the results will show that gun violence isn't a problem or isn't affected by regulation that there's just no point to doing the research, can't argue with that.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:17 |
|
Knifegrab posted:Of course some research on firearms exists. The CDC was allowed to finally begin research again but their funding for the research project was gutted. This is really simple. They are effectively, again, banning the research take place. There is no reason for this other than they are afraid of what the research might find. Not just a river in Egypt. Are you dishonest? This is the only conclusion I can come up with that explains your posts. The article you linked posted:As Public Radio International (PRI) reported recently, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee voted to reject an amendment last month that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to study the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence. The PRI article posted:In the immediate aftermath of the massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee quietly rejected an amendment that would have allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence. The claim, as you stated and tried to support, is that in July the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee rejected an amendment that would 'allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to study the underlying causes of gun violence.' Going to the website of the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee gives use the documentation for the amendment, which reads 'strike general provision prohibiting HHS funds from being used to advocate or promote gun control'. The amendment does not address research or study, but promotion and advocacy. It is false. You are free to make other claims regarding the specific budget of the CDC, but to claim that there is some kind of ban on gun violence across all agencies of the US government is false, using that article and the vote in July is false, and you need to reconsider your position. Who What Now posted:I'm not crazy, right? Lejackle was probated for one week starting yesterday. Thanks, cloud computing! You're crazy, yes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:20 |
|
LeJackal posted:Not just a river in Egypt. Are you dishonest? This is the only conclusion I can come up with that explains your posts. There is a ban. If the research shows without a shadow of a doubt that gun control would be an effective way to end or curtail the violence in America, the study cannot be funded then. Since researchers don't know the result of their study before hand, they have to err on the side of caution that their study could in fact, advocate for that, and then that the study couldn't or shouldn't have been funded because of motions like these. Critical thought doesn't have to be replaced by guns ya know! Also you are apparently probated according to your rap sheet.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:23 |
|
Knifegrab posted:Lol nope, what that means is if the CDC does a study and finds that promoting gun-control would lead to better public health/safety, then they are not allowed to allocate funds for it. Therefore they cannot research anything because they can't be sure the results wouldn't advocate that. Knifegrab posted:If the research shows without a shadow of a doubt that gun control would be an effective way to end or curtail the violence in America, the study cannot be funded then. The CDC got their hand slapped because they funded a researcher who did an awful study for the express purpose of advocating for gun control. Nothing in the plain language of the law prohibits them from studying gun injury or violence. VitalSigns posted:Oh. Oh! You think these items are regulated the same, no, that firearms are regulated more strictly and you're fine with that. You said that you wanted your neighbors "checked out" before they could buy explosive precursors, and I pointed out that the background check for explosives handlers and manufacturers already uses nearly identical adjudication criteria as the one for firearms purchases, and most likely uses the same criminal databases. I'm not sure how you got to "gun and explosives should be regulated the same" from that. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Dec 10, 2015 |
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:29 |
|
Lol holy poo poo I just realized this was a paper intended to set research priorities on gun violence. It drew no conclusions of its own. Great link!
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:31 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That, uh, is not at all what I said. Uh yeah, because someone with a license or the agent of someone with a license has already shown they have a good reason for purchasing explosives. The check is due diligence to make sure they're not making an agent out of someone with a criminal record. You can't just place an order for explosives without a license. And you certainly can't go to an explosives show or buy them from a private seller without even having a background check.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:34 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That... doesn't even make sense. If a study finds that, say, assault weapons bans reduce violent deaths by 90%, the money has already been spent to fund the study. The CDC couldn't know the results of the study in advance unless the authors were going in with an outcome they already decided on. Results aren't advocacy anyway. You don't make any sense. Research is done before a conclusion is known. If they know their research wouldn't show findings that would support gun-control advocacy then its not proper unbiased research. They can't research it because they can't be sure their findings won't go against pro-gun nuts rhetoric. Furthermore the political climate has socially banned it from happening anyway.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:37 |
|
Knifegrab posted:Serious question: Is anyone who is against gun control, also against lifting the ban on gun violence research? Kilroy fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 10, 2015 |
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:38 |
|
LeJackal posted:You're crazy, yes.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:41 |
|
This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/pdf/PLAW-104publ208.pdf In this, it is specifically mentioned that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control" Which is a very clever wording, because there's literally no way to know if any particular study is going to be for or against the promotion of gun control until the study is done. At which point, if the study is done, then all funding will be cut. So in order to secure continued funding, better to not do any studies on it at all. That's a ban in all but name. Funnily enough the Dickey Amendment, which did the same thing to research on human embryos, was correctly recognized as a ban on stem cell research.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:42 |
|
Ddraig posted:This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997: It got even better: If the CDC did fund a study, the NRA could 'fact-check' the study before its release. The NRA had threatened to lobby to defund the CDC in its entirety because of it, and as a result of the Dickey Amendment, refused to provide funding for gun violence studies for fear of them following through on it.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:47 |
|
The only way it's not a ban is if you start from the assumption that gun violence research could not possibly ever find that gun control is a benefit to public health. "See it's not a ban because you're still allowed to do research as long as you make sure the results agree with me."
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:48 |
|
Ddraig posted:This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997: The Dickey amendment explicitly prohibited research though, so no one was arguing that it wasn't a ban on research involving embryos: quote:SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for-- The CDC language just prohibits advocacy. It's not exclusive to guns, either. From the CDC's Anti-Lobbying restrictions document: quote:The prohibitions in subsections (a) and (b) shall include any activity to advocate or promote any proposed, pending or future Federal, State or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:56 |
|
Kilroy posted:I don't think we should hamper research efforts based on what we think the outcome might be. Whatever ban you're going on about, I'm in favor of lifting it and using the resulting research to inform future policy. Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 01:59 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The Dickey amendment explicitly prohibited research though, so no one was arguing that it wasn't a ban on research involving embryos: You can argue that all you want, the Dickey Amendment was SPECIFICALLY targeted at CDC funding for Gun Violence research. Hell, the freaking amendment SPECIFICALLY targeted the amount for funding that research. This does not hold up to your claim that its just reasonable compromise, it was a targeted attack.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:08 |
|
Ddraig posted:This is the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Bill for 1997: Ignoring the reason the law exists, (surprise, it's because the CDC paid a guy to put out an anti-gun study) why's this an issue? There's no shortage of data about guns and injuries, there's like five different nonprofits that exist solely to churn out [cites] for Brady or Bloomberg or whoever needs one for a press release. There's so much poo poo out there you can pick basically any position, far right or left, and find ten studies backing you up no issue at all. I don't see much issue with keeping the CDC from using their position to lend undue weight to one side, and it's not like they'd be exclusively pro-control anyway, the director is appointed. archangelwar posted:Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well. How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:08 |
semper wifi posted:How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one That's not what he said, and is instead a clumsy lie or instance of stupidity on your part.
|
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:10 |
|
semper wifi posted:Ignoring the reason the law exists, (surprise, it's because the CDC paid a guy to put out an anti-gun study) why's this an issue? If the shoe fits. quote:The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. That's the problem with arguing that 'Well, the CDC was just being biased'. Well, that is what the data SAID! The data said this was an issue, an alarming issue. The fact that the NRA took offense is the real thing you should be worried about, dressing it up as 'Well, its not real science' is just a really poor excuse.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:12 |
|
CommieGIR posted:You can argue that all you want, the Dickey Amendment was SPECIFICALLY targeted at CDC funding for Gun Violence research. Hell, the freaking amendment SPECIFICALLY targeted the amount for funding that research. This does not hold up to your claim that its just reasonable compromise, it was a targeted attack. Twice today. You should probably start googling the things you post about before you hit reply.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:14 |
|
semper wifi posted:How are you going to complain about intellectual bankruptcy in one sentence and then say "i changed my position because i'm afraid i'll get called a libertarian" in the next one That is... quite the interpretation. Here, let me clarify... As my beliefs have evolved away from libertarianism, so has my belief in the strength of individual gun rights.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:14 |
|
Thank god its not just me.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:15 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The Dickey Amendment had nothing to do with guns. He passed an Amendment in 1996 doing this. Stop being a disingenuous rear end. You KNEW what I meant. quote:Tacked onto a 1996 appropriations bill, the Dickey Amendment was pushed through Congress by Republican legislators under substantial pressure from the NRA, as the amendment’s author, former Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.), admitted in a 2012 op-ed in the Washington Post that he co-authored. Dickey wrote that the lack of research by the NIH and the CDC had resulted in a troubling information gap: "US scientists cannot answer the most basic question: What works to prevent firearm injuries? We don’t know whether having more citizens carry guns would decrease or increase firearm deaths; or whether firearm registration and licensing would make inner-city residents safer or expose them to greater harm." CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 10, 2015 |
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:17 |
|
The thing about the gun control debate is they could just come out and say "I think thousands of preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price to pay for My Rights (to own useless toys (of any number and any type I want (without having to secure them (or fill out paperwork.))))" That basically boils down to a matter of opinion about security policy, and to their credit some gun advocates do say this. But much more often they argue these bizarre rote pieties that are not borne out in factual reality or critical thought, like "gun laws do nothing," "automatic weapons are not dangerous," "guns are not better at killing people than knives," "criminals will always have whatever weapons they want." And that's without getting into their incredibly common insane tough-talk fantasies of needing guns to fight off The Man and how any attempt to restrict them therefore are secret plots by The Man. (I say "The Man" and not any specific entity or organization because this is a nearly universal motivation and who The Man is varies entirely on their politics.) We can't even get to the nut of the issue because we're too busy shooting down these asinine irrational counterfactuals they found on ConfirmationBias.com
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:19 |
|
semper wifi posted:Ignoring the reason the law exists, (surprise, it's because the CDC paid a guy to put out an anti-gun study) why's this an issue? There's no shortage of data about guns and injuries, there's like five different nonprofits that exist solely to churn out [cites] for Brady or Bloomberg or whoever needs one for a press release. There's so much poo poo out there you can pick basically any position, far right or left, and find ten studies backing you up no issue at all. I don't see much issue with keeping the CDC from using their position to lend undue weight to one side, and it's not like they'd be exclusively pro-control anyway, the director is appointed. "Why do you have to do science when you could just read articles on Bloomberg, isn't there enough science in the world already", yes this is the reasonable pro-informed-policy position.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:20 |
|
Shifting goal posts and red herrings are pretty much the tactics being used by the people against the research. Its pretty concerning honestly.archangelwar posted:Basically my stance; as having been a strong gun rights proponent, I have been evolving my position based on discovering the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun advocacy. I would gladly sacrifice my guns, used primarily for acquisition of tasty sausage, sport and entertainment, if it means it will result in an overall reduction in death and suffering. This corresponds to my distance from misguided teenage libertarianism as well. You and me are basically the same person. I sure love my shooty-shoots but if I had to give em up for a better world I would.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:22 |
|
Tezzor posted:According to the sources I cited, gunshots are about 2-3 times deadlier than stabbings. According to the FBI, in 2012 the US had 12,765 murders and a murder rate of approximately 4.1. Of those murders, 8,855 were committed with firearms, or 69%. Therefore if the number of attacks did not go down if the attackers solely had knives (a shaky premise, but let's be generous) that would prevent 3900 to 5900 murders in the United States, for a murder rate of 2.8 to 2.2, a reduction of the murder rate of 32% to 46%. It's okay, Tezzor. We're aware that all your ranting has nothing at all to do with actually caring about any of these things, because you have no interest in addressing any of these problems. You simply want to gently caress with gun owners because they are a class of people you don't like. You don't have to pretend.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:25 |
|
Knifegrab posted:Shifting goal posts and red herrings are pretty much the tactics being used by the people against the research. Its pretty concerning honestly. Are you posting from a theater? Your day job must be as a projectionist. "There is a ban on research." "Well, there are funding issues with one agency." "Well, not funding advocacy is a ban." "Well, research is advocacy because they can go back in time and take away a budget."
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:26 |
|
LeJackal posted:"There is a ban on research." "Well, there are funding issues with one agency." "Well, not funding advocacy is a ban." "Well, research is advocacy because they can go back in time and take away a budget." You're late. We already demonstrated that there was ban. Dancing around the word 'ban' does not make it not a ban, especially when the funds removed specifically match the program of study. And no, seriously, you are probated.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:27 |
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's okay, Tezzor. We're aware that all your ranting has nothing at all to do with actually caring about any of these things, because you have no interest in addressing any of these problems. You simply want to gently caress with gun owners because they are a class of people you don't like. I freely admit that I want to gently caress with gun fanboys (not necessarily all gun owners,) because they are extremely unpleasant, self-absorbed cretins who don't think or listen and whose sociopathic toy-obsession results in thousands of preventable deaths annually, not because it is some opinion that I pulled from a hat.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:28 |
|
LeJackal posted:Are you posting from a theater? Your day job must be as a projectionist. I don't think you understand the definition of the very things you are posting about. I am talking literal definitions, as in what words actually mean.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:30 |
|
CommieGIR posted:If the shoe fits. It's what the data said because the guy who did the study had been involved in gun control for a decade at that point, and was known for it. He's got a Wikipedia page even, where they talk about his notable advocacy for gun control - cranking out antigun studies is his thing. If they'd hired John Lott the data would've been the opposite and the study would have come to the opposite conclusion, I'm sure. lies, damned lies, and statistics. VitalSigns posted:"Why do you have to do science when you could just read articles on Bloomberg, isn't there enough science in the world already", yes this is the reasonable pro-informed-policy position. The years have made me jaded when it comes to studies about guns, and I think that's true of most people interested in it because as I'm sure you know, there's a study for every position. No matter what position you're taking someone has massaged the numbers to support it. Even in cases where even the less-scrupulous anti-gun organizations (eg the VPC) can't get the numbers to work for them, like the Australian overall homicide rate post-ban, people just ignore it and point to different numbers. The CDC isn't going to do anything different, as they showed back in the 90s when they paid off Kellerman and got their slap on the wrist. Tezzor posted:The thing about the gun control debate is they could just come out and say "I think thousands of preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price to pay for My Rights (to own useless toys (of any number and any type I want (without having to secure them (or fill out paperwork.))))" That basically boils down to a matter of opinion about security policy, and to their credit some gun advocates do say this. But much more often they argue these bizarre rote pieties that are not borne out in factual reality or critical thought, like "gun laws do nothing," "automatic weapons are not dangerous," "guns are not better at killing people than knives," "criminals will always have whatever weapons they want." And that's without getting into their incredibly common insane tough-talk fantasies of needing guns to fight off The Man and how any attempt to restrict them therefore are secret plots by The Man. (I say "The Man" and not any specific entity or organization because this is a nearly universal motivation and who The Man is varies entirely on their politics.) We can't even get to the nut of the issue because we're too busy shooting down these asinine irrational counterfactuals they found on ConfirmationBias.com I think the vast majority of pro-gun people will pretty willingly admit to being unwilling to give up rights for some "maybe-benefits", it's the foundation of the mindset and I think most people in this thread have said as much. The rest of what you're saying is bullshit though because all of those example arguments you're posting are true. Gun laws don't do anything. Machine guns aren't any more dangerous than other kinds of rifle. And I'm pretty sure stabbings have a higher fatality rate than shootings.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:32 |
|
Tezzor posted:I freely admit that I want to gently caress with gun fanboys (not necessarily all gun owners,) because they are extremely unpleasant, self-absorbed cretins who don't think or listen and whose sociopathic toy-obsession results in thousands of preventable deaths annually, not because it is some opinion that I pulled from a hat. This is why you should not post on the subject. Your obnoxious attempts to couch your hate for a group as reasonable and expected and good policy are just noise, and provide nothing of value to discussion.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:36 |
|
semper wifi posted:I think the vast majority of pro-gun people will pretty willingly admit to being unwilling to give up rights for some "maybe-benefits", it's the foundation of the mindset and I think most people in this thread have said as much. The rest of what you're saying is bullshit though because all of those example arguments you're posting are true. Gun laws don't do anything. Machine guns aren't any more dangerous than other kinds of rifle. And I'm pretty sure stabbings have a higher fatality rate than shootings. I think most people feel a lot less comfortable thinking "this terrible thing is a regrettable but acceptable price for my toy accessibility" than they do thinking "this terrible thing can't be changed and has nothing to do with me" or "this terrible thing exists because the people I don't like are restricting my toy accessibility," thus the compounding breaches of sanity; it's not really about what is true or makes any sense, it's about making themselves feel better. We can see this from the fact that your last claim, which you seem to believe despite the fact that it is massively counter-intuitive, also happens to be indisputably, demonstrably false http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3754716&pagenumber=11&perpage=40#post453656257
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:46 |
|
That's the thing about studies: They are often not, by themselves, enough to inform any sort of policy. There is an entire field dedicated to "meta-analysis" which collates various studies in an attempt to see if there is actually a statistically significant degree of evidence one way or the other. It could be very well that the next 10 studies could completely disagree with the original, but it was shut down completely by pants-making GBS threads-terrified NRA advocates immediately, so we'll never know.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 02:51 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 02:04 |
|
I've watched a number of videos of people shooting pumpkins and watermelons and I've inferred that it is extremely important to make sure to be careful when using a knife to cut up these fruits lest they shatter and explode in a cloud of wet vapor.
|
# ? Dec 10, 2015 05:12 |