3 ms·

> my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime How is a database a sensible measure? Even in your example (like on TV), the crime h

> my genuine desire to take some sensible measures to reduce violent crime How is a database a sensible measure? Even in your example (like on TV), the crime has already been committed. We see this in the real world too. After the Pulse massacre, they looked up the gun. Sure enough, it belonged to the shooter, who passed background checks, took training courses, and went through psych evaluations. All of the above (frequently touted) measures were completely ineffective at preventing or even mitigating the disaster. I too have a genuine desire to stop mass shootings, but the genuine-ness of my desires doesn't necessarily mean effective-ness.

onetwotree 10y ago
This is the kind of thing that deserves study and debate. But when study is cut off from federal funding, and debate constantly suffers from a lack of trust, we're really screwed.
- hga 10y ago
  This so called study still has plenty of dollars chasing it, with Bloomberg's billions now stepping up to the plate, the problem is with that "so called" detail. The major medical journals such as the NEJM are quite willing to publish self-evident garbage, like Kellerman's infamous one that only scored a successful self-defense use of a gun if it killed the perpetrator, which we're not legally or morally allowed to intend, nor is the common outcome (about a 1/4th chance of a handgun round to the torso killing the target, and most are never shot at, few are hit, and fewer hit in a vital area). I for one think e.g. the the CDC has one job, one that it's manifestly been failing at as has become obvious with the lab screwups and the Ebola response, and which we may now be seeing with Zika. As for the lack of trust, the gun control side does not hide its desire for confiscation; how is the other side supposed to have any trust in its good will?

onetwotree 10y ago

This is the kind of thing that deserves study and debate. But when study is cut off from federal funding, and debate constantly suffers from a lack of trust, we're really screwed.

hga 10y ago
This so called study still has plenty of dollars chasing it, with Bloomberg's billions now stepping up to the plate, the problem is with that "so called" detail. The major medical journals such as the NEJM are quite willing to publish self-evident garbage, like Kellerman's infamous one that only scored a successful self-defense use of a gun if it killed the perpetrator, which we're not legally or morally allowed to intend, nor is the common outcome (about a 1/4th chance of a handgun round to the torso killing the target, and most are never shot at, few are hit, and fewer hit in a vital area). I for one think e.g. the the CDC has one job, one that it's manifestly been failing at as has become obvious with the lab screwups and the Ebola response, and which we may now be seeing with Zika. As for the lack of trust, the gun control side does not hide its desire for confiscation; how is the other side supposed to have any trust in its good will?