5 ms·

Like with tobacco, big studies have been suppressed. Guns are far from a well-ventilated issue, they're just well-entrenched. The Dickey amendment got clarifie

Like with tobacco, big studies have been suppressed. Guns are far from a well-ventilated issue, they're just well-entrenched. The Dickey amendment got clarified in 2018, and the first earmarks for research were for FY2020 - so, I'd say we wait with those proclamations a few more years.

rayiner 6y ago
What difference are those studies going to make? If Columbia University in the City of New York discovers you can use guns to kill people, are voters suddenly going to go "oh, well then!"
- 1MoreThing 6y ago
  That's clearly not the kind of research that's going to be done. Funding of gun studies means we can make arguments backed up by data instead of partisan bickering. Calls to arm teachers in classrooms or mandate trigger locks on guns have real world effects, and both sides think they're right about it. Funding for studies of specific actions and policies help us as a society make more informed decisions. More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    You will find that many of us gun rights supporters don't care what data comes out. I don't support 2a because fewer than n people die per year from guns.
    - wing-_-nuts 6y ago
      Your honesty is refreshing, and psychopathic.
      - da_big_ghey 6y ago
        > psychopathic That is a needless personal attack, and I notice that you fail to make a coherent argument against what I said. Do you favor protections against unreasonable search and seizure only until too many criminals benefit from it? My point is that some people value liberty higher than life. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say why, though I honestly don't know that you'll change my mind on that.
        1MoreThing 6y ago
        > Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states. Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy... That doesn't seem like a personal attack so much as pointing out that this belief lacks empathy and is callous, which I tend to agree with. The standard argument, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that some controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms is a net good for society by reducing accidental deaths, suicides, and murders. Guns aren't responsible for any of those things, people are. But guns dramatically change the scale at which they happen. Ignoring that because of a belief in absolute freedom from regulation for machines designed to kill is callous and un-empathic. Or, to use a synonym, psychopathic. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        So the millions of men who sacrificed their own lives to defend this principle of liberty psychopaths? Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do. The fact that people view it this way is very bad sign for how selfish and callous Americans have become.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do. Having ideals is exactly noble, or ignoble, as the ideals. There is nothing noble about devotion to ideas independent of the ideas one is devoted to. “A world free of Jews” is an ideal people have been devoted to. People who were more devoted to that idea and willing to sacrifice more for it are not more noble than those less devoted by reason of their devotion.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Facts often drive behavior and understanding. Examples: - Are there correlations between outcomes and specific brands, configurations, or other attributes of firearm? - Are there correlations between sales at specific outlets and outcomes? - Is age and/or experience correlated with negative outcomes? The assumption is that studying this would negatively impact gun ownership. I don't think that's true. Consider that anti-gun rhetoric over the .50 Barrett rifle. You may find that it's really a collector's item that isn't associated with crime. I'm sure there are many examples similar to this, that are blocked by black and white opinion on the matter, fueled by mutual ignorance.
aksss 6y ago
The Dickey Amendment didn't ban any studies or doing research, it banned the CDC from advocating gun control policies at a time when the administration was pushing it to use its authority/reputation to do so. It would be like me saying you can do all the research you want on teenage pregnancy and the like, but we're not funding your department to do political advocacy campaigns for abstinence. Stick to the science.
- wing-_-nuts 6y ago
  ...and yet, where are these publicly funded studies on gun violence since? It's a ban in fact, if not a ban in law.
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    Here's a CDC-funded study on gun violence from 2013: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 You've been repeatedly and blatantly lied to by the media and politicians about the CDC being "banned" from researching gun violence. The ban was on the use of public funds to advocate for specific gun laws/policies, not on research into the subject itself.

rayiner 6y ago

What difference are those studies going to make? If Columbia University in the City of New York discovers you can use guns to kill people, are voters suddenly going to go "oh, well then!"

1MoreThing 6y ago
That's clearly not the kind of research that's going to be done. Funding of gun studies means we can make arguments backed up by data instead of partisan bickering. Calls to arm teachers in classrooms or mandate trigger locks on guns have real world effects, and both sides think they're right about it. Funding for studies of specific actions and policies help us as a society make more informed decisions. More info: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  You will find that many of us gun rights supporters don't care what data comes out. I don't support 2a because fewer than n people die per year from guns.
  - wing-_-nuts 6y ago
    Your honesty is refreshing, and psychopathic.
    - da_big_ghey 6y ago
      > psychopathic That is a needless personal attack, and I notice that you fail to make a coherent argument against what I said. Do you favor protections against unreasonable search and seizure only until too many criminals benefit from it? My point is that some people value liberty higher than life. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say why, though I honestly don't know that you'll change my mind on that.
      - 1MoreThing 6y ago
        > Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence of empathy and the blunting of other affective states. Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy... That doesn't seem like a personal attack so much as pointing out that this belief lacks empathy and is callous, which I tend to agree with. The standard argument, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that some controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms is a net good for society by reducing accidental deaths, suicides, and murders. Guns aren't responsible for any of those things, people are. But guns dramatically change the scale at which they happen. Ignoring that because of a belief in absolute freedom from regulation for machines designed to kill is callous and un-empathic. Or, to use a synonym, psychopathic. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy
        nickthemagicman 6y ago
        So the millions of men who sacrificed their own lives to defend this principle of liberty psychopaths? Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do. The fact that people view it this way is very bad sign for how selfish and callous Americans have become.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do. Having ideals is exactly noble, or ignoble, as the ideals. There is nothing noble about devotion to ideas independent of the ideas one is devoted to. “A world free of Jews” is an ideal people have been devoted to. People who were more devoted to that idea and willing to sacrifice more for it are not more noble than those less devoted by reason of their devotion.
Spooky23 6y ago
Facts often drive behavior and understanding. Examples: - Are there correlations between outcomes and specific brands, configurations, or other attributes of firearm? - Are there correlations between sales at specific outlets and outcomes? - Is age and/or experience correlated with negative outcomes? The assumption is that studying this would negatively impact gun ownership. I don't think that's true. Consider that anti-gun rhetoric over the .50 Barrett rifle. You may find that it's really a collector's item that isn't associated with crime. I'm sure there are many examples similar to this, that are blocked by black and white opinion on the matter, fueled by mutual ignorance.

aksss 6y ago

The Dickey Amendment didn't ban any studies or doing research, it banned the CDC from advocating gun control policies at a time when the administration was pushing it to use its authority/reputation to do so. It would be like me saying you can do all the research you want on teenage pregnancy and the like, but we're not funding your department to do political advocacy campaigns for abstinence. Stick to the science.

wing-_-nuts 6y ago
...and yet, where are these publicly funded studies on gun violence since? It's a ban in fact, if not a ban in law.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  Here's a CDC-funded study on gun violence from 2013: https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1 You've been repeatedly and blatantly lied to by the media and politicians about the CDC being "banned" from researching gun violence. The ban was on the use of public funds to advocate for specific gun laws/policies, not on research into the subject itself.