Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe Smartest Way to Address Gun Violence? Research
While research on adverse health effects is required for most consumer goods, from toys to cosmetics, none exists for guns.
To illustrate the positive effects of research, we can examine the advancements made in motor-vehicle safety. In 2013, motor vehicles contributed to 33,804 deaths, about the same number as guns (33,646). In contrast to gun-related deaths, this is the lowest deaths per capita ever and half that of 1975, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. This improvement was possible because of the tremendous resources that went into collecting data on vehicles, the people who drive them, and the roads.
The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration 2015 budget for safety research and development is $122 million. This does not include the research funding imbedded in its budget for vehicle safety ($152 million) and Highway Traffic Safety Grants to states ($577 million). It also does not include the vast amounts of resources auto manufacturers invest in safety. Resources for data and research enable NHTSA to know that 50 percent of people killed in crashes are unbelted; 30 percent of highway fatalities involve an impaired driver; and 90 percent of crashes involve an element of human error. The research leads to innovations like airbags, high-strength occupant cages and crumple zones; laws and regulations such as drunk-driving laws, seat-belt and cell-phone use laws; and environmental improvements like better street lighting, safer guardrails, and improved signage.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/criminal-justice/smartest-way-address-gun-violence-is-research
ileus
(15,396 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)And the cost of the CDC 2013 study on the effectiveness of gun control laws, done at the request of the White House?
The FBI does an annual report on gun violence and I can't imagine they do that on $50 bucks. That annual FBI Uniform Crime Report has to be a big ticket item. I'm sure it was just overlooked by the author.
Or are you just cutting and pasting another article propagating the myth that the CDC isn't allowed to do gun research?
This is what the 3rd or 4th post related to that gun control lie?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)...be true, make sense, be a new topic or present a new point of view. It's just an opportunity to stick another virtual post-it up that might push another story with some facts off the group's first page.
Those that believe this.. stuff fall into 3 categories: believers, noobs and boobs.
The believers: those who listen to pro-control "preachers" and screen out debate, eschew compromise and fear thinking about being wrong. To them I say, have fun talking among yourselves.
The noobs: have done no research at all and just read/heard some emotion filled ideas. I hope they'll mature and learn.
The boobs: they know the Apollo landings were fakes but spend more time searching for Elvis than most anything else. They'll believe anything and to them I say..
..since I'm a French model.
DonP
(6,185 posts)I'd say generally the folks that post "Fuck the NRA" in all caps in any and all GD gun related posts are among the "Noobs" or "Boobs". Mainly because they don't ever bother to post anything in the "Gun Control Inactivism group" and don't seem to care enough to actually support any gun control group. Saying Fuck the NRA is cheap and easy to do.
They only show up for high profile crimes, shout once or twice, then go back to fighting and pissing on each other in the Primary Forums. For a brief period the primary wars are more of a focus for trying to get people banned than the Gungeon is.
But with the typical DU jury, any naming names or even implying individuals would be sure to get a hide ... or two if they could figure out a way to do that.
Of course some of the "True Believers" seem to be always pissed off at Skinner for even allowing the Gungeon to exist, so they're easy to spot in ATA.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)They seem indicative of anger, emotion and allegiance to an individual... Much like the whole pro-control whine chorus... Which seems rather contrary to the legislative process. That is what gun-control is about right, laws?
The primaries are closer to being a sporting event like a horse race than anything else.
DonP
(6,185 posts)It's not a "we disagree on this or that policy" kind of discussion.
It's more "you are obviously an idiot and shouldn't be allowed an opinion or vote", kind of attitude.
IIRC, we went through the same thing in 2008.
A whole lot of bitterness and some of it's still there today it seems.
And of course, if any candidate in any race doesn't win, it will be because of all the "Right Wing Gun Humpers" in the Gungeon.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,577 posts)I just had a flashback to a Barney Miller. Fish emerges from the bathroom as 2 detectives looking very soiled lock up someone they chased through the sewer and remarks, "Oh no, I may be guilty of obstructing justice."
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Jimmy didn't like the return on investment. The two liberal criminologists reported that there was no credible evidence that the Gun Control Act of 1968 yielded a measurable reduction in gun crime. In fact, they suggested that meaningful reduction of gun violence could be best achieved by attacking the problem at it's source. (The impoverished/drug-ridden urban environments where the problem is most acute.)
Straw Man
(6,771 posts)Does the NHTSA do research on motor vehicle use in the commission of crimes? Will research on gun violence lead to advancements in the technology of body armor? Will there be new ad campaigns telling people not to drink while shooting?
Let's not pretend that the recommendations of all this "research" will be anything but calls for more gun control laws, OK?
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Among the many brazen lies The Controllers push is that there is a deficiency in research w/regard to gun violence. Hogshit! They simply don't like what solid research has turned up thus far, and want to re-research in order to arrive at conclusions more charitable to their "cause". Even given the fact that the latest CDC statements have admitted to high numbers of defensive gun uses, and other things that support the RKBA position, I still don't trust them any further than I can punt a rhino.
I recall scoping out a web page which listed items that the CDC listed as aspects of gun violence which screamed for more research. I wish that I had saved the page......as I haven't been able to relocate it. The remarkable thing about the items listed is that they were areas well researched by James Wright, Peter Rossi, Gary Kleck and others. Most notably, many of the "questions" they ticked off have been adequately addressed by Wright and Rossi with their groundbreaking prison survey.
So ENOUGH with this garbage that there is inadequate research into gun violence. The only people who make this claim at this point in the game are the ignorant and the mendacious.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As for that ilk of "research,"' there are still foundations who keep that squirrel cage turning, CDC or no; since the issue is so big, there must be plenty of dough and culture warriors picking up the tab. The drug warriors have their institutes, the anti-gunners have their's.