Knife Control! Yep, Next After Gun Control!

[One Bad Pig]

Gravity is also settled science. Evolution, too.

"Settled" doesn't mean that we don't continue to study phenomena. How do you not know that science is a constant pursuit of knowledge and never ends?



Yup, Ted Cruz has no anti-climate change agenda.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/25/politi...ilks-brothers/

I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.

[whag]

I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.

I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."

[Cow Poke]

I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."

And What fails to understand is that studies can be done WITHOUT Congress. Whag, do you POOP without congressional approval?

[Sam]

I find it amusing that y'all are trying to change the focus of the thread to climate change. It's almost like you'd rather not admit that the OP has a valid point which you'd rather not talk about.

No one's trying to change the focus of the thread and, as far as thread-drift goes, this tangent doesn't even make it to the average.

My question about the "base bill" you were talking about is still sitting around, if you're super-interested in getting back on topic, tho.

[rogue06]

I talked about the OP plenty. Cow Poke said we should research the whackos who kill people with guns, failing to realize that gun nuts in congress shut that research down. His response was "Politics."

San Francisco ExaminerArming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture stands exposed as an utter hoax. Bellesiles was an Emory professor and director of the Center for the Study of Violence and his book caused a sensation with Second Amendment opponents with its claim that gun ownership in the U.S. was "an invented tradition," but ended with its author being charged with perpetrating what the New York Times called "one of the worst academic scandals in years."

The media went nuts over the release of the book the Chicago TribuneNew York TimesLos Angeles Times hailed the book as a "great achievement," while the Philadelphia Inquirer gushed that it was "the most critically praised book of America history in many years." The Journal of American History called the book's research "meticulous and thorough," and wrote that Bellesiles had "attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment". It declared Bellesiles' evidence was so formidable that "if the subject were open to rational argument", the debate would be over.

IOW, Bellesiles' book had reassured the liberal establishment that their belief that what they had believed about guns, what they had hoped to be true, was correct: that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right to bear arms, that individual gun rights were deemed unimportant at the time of the writing and ramification of the U.S. Constitution.

But then things started going wrong. Seriously wrong. It turned out that Bellesiles' alleged research was based on distorted interpretations of historical records and often cited evidence that appears to have been completely fabricated. Scholars who examined his data couldn't substantiate his claims that the 11,000-plus probate records from 40 counties in Colonial America showed fewer than 7% actually owned working guns. Academics trying to corroborate New York TimesJournal of American HistoryDamned Lies and Statistics.

Now, I'm sure there have been garbage studies produced by the pro-Second Amendment crowd but I seriously doubt that they were scooped up and uncritically parroted uncritically by the media for years often even after they were discredited.

[Cow Poke]

I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd ...

And, therein lies the rub. WHO is doing the study, how much will it cost -- is this like the Obamacare website thing, where boatloads of money were given to Obama's buddies who proved totally incompetent? It's "politics" - neither side trusts the other, and, in many cases, with good reason.

Excellent post their, Rouge!

[Sam]

San Francisco ExaminerArming America: The Origins of the National Gun Culture stands exposed as an utter hoax. Bellesiles was an Emory professor and director of the Center for the Study of Violence and his book caused a sensation with Second Amendment opponents with its claim that gun ownership in the U.S. was "an invented tradition," but ended with its author being charged with perpetrating what the New York Times called "one of the worst academic scandals in years."

The media went nuts over the release of the book the Chicago TribuneNew York TimesLos Angeles Times hailed the book as a "great achievement," while the Philadelphia Inquirer gushed that it was "the most critically praised book of America history in many years." The Journal of American History called the book's research "meticulous and thorough," and wrote that Bellesiles had "attacked the central myth behind the National Rifle Association's interpretation of the Second Amendment". It declared Bellesiles' evidence was so formidable that "if the subject were open to rational argument", the debate would be over.

IOW, Bellesiles' book had reassured the liberal establishment that their belief that what they had believed about guns, what they had hoped to be true, was correct: that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right to bear arms, that individual gun rights were deemed unimportant at the time of the writing and ramification of the U.S. Constitution.

But then things started going wrong. Seriously wrong. It turned out that Bellesiles' alleged research was based on distorted interpretations of historical records and often cited evidence that appears to have been completely fabricated. Scholars who examined his data couldn't substantiate his claims that the 11,000-plus probate records from 40 counties in Colonial America showed fewer than 7% actually owned working guns. Academics trying to corroborate New York TimesJournal of American HistoryDamned Lies and Statistics.

Now, I'm sure there have been garbage studies produced by the pro-Second Amendment crowd but I seriously doubt that they were scooped up and uncritically parroted uncritically by the media for years often even after they were discredited.

[Mountain Man]

I think that studying gun violence is legitimate but I think the problem has been the amount of pure garbage research that has been produced by the anti-Second Amendment crowd that was designed to push forth an agenda rather than look at the issue has made people leery.

I addressed this already in a previous post, but what do you know, Sam and Dimbulb seem to have completely overlooked it. What a surprise.

[Cow Poke]

I addressed this already in a previous post, but what do you know, Sam and Dimbulb seem to have completely overlooked it. What a surprise.

[Mountain Man]

Or it's like "adjusting" historical data whenever it doesn't fit one's agenda and then declaring the issue "settled".

One of the biggest problems outside of the "advocacy research" favored by the left is that there's no settled methodology for studying gun violence.

Source: BoingBoing.net

http://boingboing.net/2013/02/26/fir...paign=ttdbmore

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

My point is the level of how bad some of these reports are and how they were automatically accepted and uncritically repeated by one side even after questions concerning their validity surfaced.

Indeed, it is familiar

[Mountain Man]

O.K., so... what's an example of good gun violence research that you would be willing to stand behind?

[Sam]

My point is the level of how bad some of these reports are and how they were automatically accepted and uncritically repeated by one side even after questions concerning their validity surfaced.

Indeed, it is familiar

Probably not best to crow about that, given the recent history of climate-science deniers, "reparative therapy"-supporters, anti-same sex parenting provocateurs, etc. 'round here. If your point is that science gets misused on both sides so people really need to focus on the studies and do their homework, that didn't really come through in your post (see CP's and MM's reaction, there). If your point was to level an accusation against the consensus conclusions of gun violence research on the basis of some bad studies, the familiarity of the situation doesn't suit your argument well.

I've put three or four actual studies on this board in the last week regarding this topic and none of them have been touched. That, to me, says a whole lot more than a complaint that "the media" frequently gets the science wrong or repeats false claims ("Gun control led to the Holocaust!")

[klaus54]

...

Excellent post their, Rouge!

What color?

My guess is a pinkish blush.



Farding (not a misspelling) instead of logic is one accurate descriptor of the anti-gun nuts.

[rogue06]

Probably not best to crow about that, given the recent history of climate-science deniers, "reparative therapy"-supporters, anti-same sex parenting provocateurs, etc. 'round here. If your point is that science gets misused on both sides so people really need to focus on the studies and do their homework, that didn't really come through in your post (see CP's and MM's reaction, there). If your point was to level an accusation against the consensus conclusions of gun violence research on the basis of some bad studies, the familiarity of the situation doesn't suit your argument well.

I've put three or four actual studies on this board in the last week regarding this topic and none of them have been touched. That, to me, says a whole lot more than a complaint that "the media" frequently gets the science wrong or repeats false claims ("Gun control led to the Holocaust!")

Superb defense there Sam. The equivalent of but... but... but someone else might have done it on a totally unrelated topic so it's okay if the anti-Second Amendment crowd does it


And historians legitimately argue over whether or not the Nazis might have been stopped early on if they had not succeeded in their gun grabbing policies. Personally, I doubt it. Unfortunately they and their policies were still very popular at that time in Germany.