"An End To the Ban on Gun-Violence Studies"?

And are willing to give me millions of dollars and a trained team of people to do it with?

No they don’t, and it is thanks to the usual suspects:

No, but he’s go lots of experience deboning.

If you want it bad enough, you’ll find a way.

There are some jobs that really are government jobs. Public health, for instance. And the statistical analysis that underlines health policy that affect millions of people. They got guys for that, know all that math stuff. We more or less trust them researching vaccination. The effects of tobacco. The efficacy of the seat belt. Why should this be somehow different?

Hell, the ballistiphiliac community, as prominently represented by the NRA, just flat loves them some statistics! How many times in these discussions have we been directed to their Wall of Truthiness web page? Now, they’re all full up, can’t handle another one? Suspicious, perhaps, that a bunch of gun-grabbing liberal weenies with high-falutin’ degrees are gonna pull a fast one?

Maybe I’m just a simple-minded peckerwood, but seems to me if someone doesn’t want you to look for the truth, its because the don’t want you to find it.

Seems to me that in in the multiple times that the Dems had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they could have found a way to get this done.

If they really wanted it.

And if they weren’t frightened of the motherfucking NRA scumbags.

Yeah, sure, like having the government do it. You know, like what the gun scum are blocking.

Frightened of what exactly?

Letters. And their effect on campaign-funding.

So the fucking NRA scumbags wield enough power with their measly 4 million members to get those bad ass politicians to be frightened of letters. Real stand up bunch there, putting their job before this critical data. I guess if they didn’t see reason to make a stand and force this data to be collected, I’m not going to sweat it much.

Cuomo and Biden are actively fucking their chances to run for Pres in 2016 with all of their noise of late. While I think they are both way off track, I respect the fact that they are putting their principles ahead of their careers.

:dubious: “Measly”?! 4 million active dues-paying members in one organization is a lot in American politics. And the NRA has mastered the art of quite astonishing force-multiplier effects. Their message appeals viscerally to the very worst in us.

You mean, the message that Obama wants to take away assault weapons from their legal owners? That message? How about the message that he wants to do the same to “high capacity” magazines as well. The NRA is not making that up you know.

That whole revolution BS as quoted in your link is a bit wacky, but what do you expect from California?

No. That’s why I suggested you fund it. I’m not interested in doing so, and neither is Congress apparently.

I was referring to things like the # of murders in which a gun is used, or the # of background checks made each year for gun purchases. Thankfully the NY Times can’t get a list of all the traces the ATF ever performs and publish a map of those gun owners. God bless Representative Tiahrt.

This suggestion is silly and you should stop making it. It is similar to telling someone, “Oh, the city hasn’t fixed the potholes in your road? Well, get your own crew and paving equipment and fix them yourself if you care so much.” Some things really can’t be done with individual funding; nor should they. Even if Der Trihs were a billionaire, if he privately funded a gun-control study would you, or anyone, trust the results? Please.

There is an argument to be made over whether such studies should be publicly funded, but telling someone “just fund it yourself” is ridiculous and contributes nothing to the debate. Other than, I suppose, making yourself feel smug for putting those lib’rals in their place or whatever.

There is not much of an argument to be made. Public health concerns must be investigated by the public. It is in our interests to understand threats to public safety. Most such information will have relatively little commercial value, which is why we cannot wait for the passing fancy of a philanthropist to fund it.

I agree; I suppose my point was that I can conceive of a possible counter-argument or two that are based in a good-faith effort to debate the topic. “Haw haw, pay for it yourself” is not one of them.

Well, golly gee, I am so totally surprised! You guys are sure of your positions, right? No doubt whatsoever that a cleanly run program of research would solidly bear you out, right?

Now, if someone on the gun grabber side of things were to finance and control such an investigation, you might have some doubts about the validity. As well you might, I would share those doubts, especially since such an excellent alternative is available. The research could easily be made entirely transparent, publish the source data, the mathematical models, all that good stuff.

They you guys would have a huge weapon in your rhetorical arsenal! Rock solid * bony fidos*!

Is it that you don’t think it would fair for you to have such an advantage? Hey, don’t worry about that, truth is truth, we can all take it. Boy, when those numbers come out, totally verifying your positions, you can just come down here and shove them in the gun grabbers faces and gloat your asses off!

And yet, for some reason, you seem reluctant! Even, frankly, opposed to such a development.

How very odd. I won’t even entertain the possibility that you are afraid it won’t turn out to your benefit, stern warriors for truth that you are, that is right out! Others, of course, would be tempted to that conclusion, but not me! Nosir! Nosiree, Bob! No way. Why, I bet that LaPierre guy is even now preparing a statement of solid endorsement for such research! Because he knows, as you do, that the only possible result is total vindication of your position.

I must be misunderstanding something here. Can’t be that people so solidly sure of their facts would be reluctant to have those facts verified. Trouble is, no other explanation leaps to mind.

Maybe you guys can help me out with that. Explain why this isn’t a good idea.

Hey, you crickets! Knock it off! Noisy little fucks, aren’t they?

Perhaps we can agree this is one of those areas where “we just need to enforce the laws which are already on the books” is nonsense, then?