5 ms·

History repeats itself, in an amplified manner. At least in the era of galileo the general population's prevailing world view was being challenged by new scienc

History repeats itself, in an amplified manner. At least in the era of galileo the general population's prevailing world view was being challenged by new science and evidence. This is backwards, the science has been proven decades ago, countries' policies are being amended to counter the effects. Except in America, and the Middle East. Unlikely bedfellows in science denial.

spiderfarmer 10y ago
The US government denied science before when it came gun control, birth control, abortion and cannabis, so this is just the next step backwards.
- Sunset 10y ago
  Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights is a moral one not scientific.
  - gumby 10y ago
    The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.
    - manyxcxi 10y ago
      Do you have a citation for that? I've not heard of this and I follow the issue relatively closely. I also find gun death stats pretty widely available and broken down to pretty small geographical areas from various governmental (not necessarily just federal though) and non-governmental organizations. I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard to tabulate shootings by officers- but a) I don't have a cite for that, it was a while ago, and b) that's also up to individual enforcement agencies, not federal.
      - gumby 10y ago
        Umm, it's not a secret or obscure law that bars the CDC from studying gun impact: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) - The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_us_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-... - The ban has supposedly been lifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/?utm_term=.67cc74189cad https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/... - Some more history: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... - some background: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re... And I love this entry on a blog site (Forbes): Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#579695b5282d https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-ce... The reasoning? "There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "
      - extra88 10y ago
        The most glaring example is Congress taking away funding from the Centers for Disease Control to study gun violence (I think they still do some reports based on data collected by others but not their own original research). While gun crimes get some attention, particularly mass shootings, accidents and suicides account for most gun deaths and injuries.
    - gumby 10y ago
      Why should this have been downvoted? The post I replied to asked why science matters if the gun issue is moral. I simply stated how science (i.e. reasoning from data) affects moral action, and how the two interact (addressing the other part of the poster's question). It was not a pro- or anti-gun statement. I fired a handgun just the other day.
      - Sunset 10y ago
        There isn't a hypothetical set of statistics you can imagine that would change my moral stance on gun rights and self defense one way or the other.
        gumby 10y ago
        Interesting. Is that true for all topics, or just guns? I ask because there are plenty of other such cases. We decide how much to spend on freeway construction and maintenance vs lives saved. We study the dangers, additivity etc of smoking and decide it's better to place some restrictions on people's presumed freedom of choice in order to, ironically, improve their in practice freedom of choice. We restrict the absoluteness of some peoples' freedom of association to improve everyone's freedom of association, using data to determine where this might be appropriate and how much. Etc etc. What I have said is true regardless if you think the right to bear arms is absolute or if you think it's absolutely abhorrent, much less if your position is in between. Do you believe that science has no bearing on morality of any kind, or only on the topic of guns?
        tnzn 10y ago
        You're probably talking to some libertarian who believes freedom is "doing whatever the fuck I think is best for myself"
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-powerful-evidence-that-gun-control-works https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-pow... You can have gun rights and gun control you know..
- kakarot 10y ago
  Those are a lot of different topics that you are attempting to wedge into the same point of view. Even though it should be allowed, abortion is an issue of social morality. So is gun control. Yes, you can draw statistics about these things but I'd be hesitant to call it science and I would be even more hesitant to say that protecting our rights to own weapons is a step backwards. Denying us the freedom to bear arms (as our governing leaders and peacekeepers do) and further diminishing the power of the citizen to keep his government in check is the step backwards, my friend. We may yet see another revolt in America if things continue to get worse. I don't think we will see anything like that in, say, the UK. And revolt was an inalienable right handed to us by our thoughtful forefathers who knew the government would continue to encroach on its citizens to the point of becoming a threat to them, by its very nature.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    You don't need guns to revolt. You need motivation, organization and persistence. Of all likely scenarios, the one where the people defeat the government because of the guns in their nightstands seems the most unlikely. A coordinated strike for several days would be much more effective. A revolt with guns will most likely result in seperate states of America, because gun bearing parties will try to fill up the vacuum. Not a good scenario at all.
    - kakarot 10y ago
      [citation needed]

spiderfarmer 10y ago

The US government denied science before when it came gun control, birth control, abortion and cannabis, so this is just the next step backwards.

Sunset 10y ago
Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights is a moral one not scientific.
- gumby 10y ago
  The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.
  - manyxcxi 10y ago
    Do you have a citation for that? I've not heard of this and I follow the issue relatively closely. I also find gun death stats pretty widely available and broken down to pretty small geographical areas from various governmental (not necessarily just federal though) and non-governmental organizations. I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard to tabulate shootings by officers- but a) I don't have a cite for that, it was a while ago, and b) that's also up to individual enforcement agencies, not federal.
    - gumby 10y ago
      Umm, it's not a secret or obscure law that bars the CDC from studying gun impact: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) - The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-research-amendment_us_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-... - The ban has supposedly been lifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/?utm_term=.67cc74189cad https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/... - Some more history: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as... - some background: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re... And I love this entry on a blog site (Forbes): Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#579695b5282d https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-ce... The reasoning? "There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "
    - extra88 10y ago
      The most glaring example is Congress taking away funding from the Centers for Disease Control to study gun violence (I think they still do some reports based on data collected by others but not their own original research). While gun crimes get some attention, particularly mass shootings, accidents and suicides account for most gun deaths and injuries.
  - gumby 10y ago
    Why should this have been downvoted? The post I replied to asked why science matters if the gun issue is moral. I simply stated how science (i.e. reasoning from data) affects moral action, and how the two interact (addressing the other part of the poster's question). It was not a pro- or anti-gun statement. I fired a handgun just the other day.
    - Sunset 10y ago
      There isn't a hypothetical set of statistics you can imagine that would change my moral stance on gun rights and self defense one way or the other.
      - gumby 10y ago
        Interesting. Is that true for all topics, or just guns? I ask because there are plenty of other such cases. We decide how much to spend on freeway construction and maintenance vs lives saved. We study the dangers, additivity etc of smoking and decide it's better to place some restrictions on people's presumed freedom of choice in order to, ironically, improve their in practice freedom of choice. We restrict the absoluteness of some peoples' freedom of association to improve everyone's freedom of association, using data to determine where this might be appropriate and how much. Etc etc. What I have said is true regardless if you think the right to bear arms is absolute or if you think it's absolutely abhorrent, much less if your position is in between. Do you believe that science has no bearing on morality of any kind, or only on the topic of guns?
        tnzn 10y ago
        You're probably talking to some libertarian who believes freedom is "doing whatever the fuck I think is best for myself"
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-powerful-evidence-that-gun-control-works https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-pow... You can have gun rights and gun control you know..
kakarot 10y ago
Those are a lot of different topics that you are attempting to wedge into the same point of view. Even though it should be allowed, abortion is an issue of social morality. So is gun control. Yes, you can draw statistics about these things but I'd be hesitant to call it science and I would be even more hesitant to say that protecting our rights to own weapons is a step backwards. Denying us the freedom to bear arms (as our governing leaders and peacekeepers do) and further diminishing the power of the citizen to keep his government in check is the step backwards, my friend. We may yet see another revolt in America if things continue to get worse. I don't think we will see anything like that in, say, the UK. And revolt was an inalienable right handed to us by our thoughtful forefathers who knew the government would continue to encroach on its citizens to the point of becoming a threat to them, by its very nature.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  You don't need guns to revolt. You need motivation, organization and persistence. Of all likely scenarios, the one where the people defeat the government because of the guns in their nightstands seems the most unlikely. A coordinated strike for several days would be much more effective. A revolt with guns will most likely result in seperate states of America, because gun bearing parties will try to fill up the vacuum. Not a good scenario at all.
  - kakarot 10y ago
    [citation needed]