3 ms·

>impossible to fund gun violence studies. How is the NRA stopping anyone from funding studies? >study shows as is already implied it means that person may be

>impossible to fund gun violence studies. How is the NRA stopping anyone from funding studies? >study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed Your arguments are epistemologically broken. Would giving, low-blood-pressure people, blood-pressure regulating medication suddenly make them have high blood pressure? No. Wet streets do not cause rain

matwood 9y ago
I incorrectly assumed anyone discussing gun violence would know about the Dickey Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) My arguments are not broken at all. To do the type of control you suggested above would mean putting guns in homes of people who would otherwise not have one. Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun. Putting subjects at that sort of risk for a perfect control study absolutely has ethical implications.
- vsl 9y ago
  Let me rephrase the parent: How is the NRA stopping anyone other than the government from funding studies?
- DINKDINK 9y ago
  The Dickey Amendment does not prevent individuals from funding studies. Start a community-donation campaign to fund such a study, you cannot be stopped. >Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun No they haven't. The studies show that people who own guns have higher likelihood of being injured. It does not show that owning a gun /increases/ odds of injury. Places that have wet streets have a higher likelihood of it raining recently. Does that mean that wet streets cause rain? You are assuming that the non-gun-owning population and the gun-owning population are the same. This is illogical. Perhaps it's the case that people who buy guys are just generally risk takers/more reckless than the general population (which is reasonable given that they're purchasing a gun in the first place). The problem with your logic is that its vulnerable to Simpson's Paradox[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

matwood 9y ago

I incorrectly assumed anyone discussing gun violence would know about the Dickey Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) My arguments are not broken at all. To do the type of control you suggested above would mean putting guns in homes of people who would otherwise not have one. Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun. Putting subjects at that sort of risk for a perfect control study absolutely has ethical implications.

vsl 9y ago
Let me rephrase the parent: How is the NRA stopping anyone other than the government from funding studies?
DINKDINK 9y ago
The Dickey Amendment does not prevent individuals from funding studies. Start a community-donation campaign to fund such a study, you cannot be stopped. >Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun No they haven't. The studies show that people who own guns have higher likelihood of being injured. It does not show that owning a gun /increases/ odds of injury. Places that have wet streets have a higher likelihood of it raining recently. Does that mean that wet streets cause rain? You are assuming that the non-gun-owning population and the gun-owning population are the same. This is illogical. Perhaps it's the case that people who buy guys are just generally risk takers/more reckless than the general population (which is reasonable given that they're purchasing a gun in the first place). The problem with your logic is that its vulnerable to Simpson's Paradox[1] [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox