If you want to call people “motherfucking scumbags,” do it in the Pit. Especially if it’s a vaguely-defined group of people that could be NRA leaders or millions of people in an organization.
See above. Strong opinions are welcome, but the vitriol has to be coupled to something that contributes to the debate.
I don’t follow. I do want existing laws enforced. In the case of the ones that block the CDC from conducting research into guns, that’s because I don’t believe they’ll do so without letting their personal biases creep into it.
Are you similarly worried about their personal biases about infectious disease control, vaccination, water fluoridation and the lead content of paint?
The NRA has always tried to block studies on gun violence and has a history of being successful, whether it is blocking universities that receive government money from studying gun violence, or makins sure that the recent Affordable Care Act had language in it that forbade doctors from gathering statistics on gun violence. I didn’t realize that these attempts by the NRA to block the collection of data wasn’t common knowledge and the fact that it is not, is part of the reason that the NRA is not more reviled than it is.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/executive-order-nra-should-fear-most/61004/
The message that there is anything wrong with any of that.
The message, also, that there’s something wrong even with government trying to reduce the number of firearms in circulation by buying them.
So even if a billionaire philanthropist wanted to fund such a study, the data just wouldn’t exist.
The deletion of data was part of the COMPROMISE that that NRA entered into when they backed the instant background check system.
Everyone likes to ask gun owners to compromise. We did, we backed the instant check system - we just said that there would be no permanent government record. See, we didn’t want a list that could be used for future banning / confiscation purposes. We compromised. Sorry if that got in the way of research.
There is still research being done. Kellerman is at Rand nowadays. I know a couple of criminologists who study gun violence at the university level.
The NRA had no problem with Lott doing research, or Kleck after all.
Deletion of background check information is one thing. Deletion of data regarding guns actually used in crimes is a totally unrelated issue.
And? When Congress tells you not to do, you don’t do it.
Agreed. I am a gunowner (and NRA member) who welcomes good research. The main problem is the bias among most social sciences researchers out there (and these folks are my friends). However, as long as the data is made available to everyone, then it should be fine.
Cite for this bias?
Of course not; the point of this thread is that Congress should not have, and should be funding such research.
As I stated - based on my friends on the faculty. You can also find plenty of cites for party registration by department where it is overwhelmingly Democratic Party registration.
Here is the Washington Post discussing a study:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
If that’s a consideration, and that logic is valid, Congress shouldn’t be funding any research.
I already said I supported more research, but we should always keep a skeptic’s perspective on research. It is easy to have your hypothesis influenced by your own bias, perspective, history, etc.
Party affiliation is not the same thing as bias in research. I’m looking for something that proves bias in research outputs.
Agreed. You’ll need to show that there is a deliberate bias; one that moves researches to fudge numbers, ignore evidence, or otherwise compromise their objectivity. Just because the results lead to political reality you don’t care for does not mean that the researches did bad science; it just means you don’t like the answer.
You mean like Michael Bellesiles book on guns in America, where his biased scholarship eventually cost him his job?
His book, his ability to get it past many people because his so-called results fit their worldview, is a pretty good example of what can happen when people seek a particular answer.
Your example is its own evidence. People tested his claims, found them to be dubious and he was rejected. That is how science is done.