http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/02/23/gun-nuts-hate-facts-and-research-that-might-prove-facts Comments On: Gun Nuts Hate Facts, and Research That Might Prove Facts by Chicago Fan en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 21 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 21 May 2013 14:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
My own, personal reading of the available statistics is that more guns does not mean more violence. So, I have no problem whatsoever with either unbiased research or equal amounts of biased research.

As far as "Good research only promotes political views if they're actually valid." Kellerman's study is widely quoted (if I remember correctly, both Goldy and Chicago Fan have quoted it) and held as accurate even though it has been widely debunked as being poor. So I'd have to take issue with that statement. Conversely, on the other side, "gun-nuts" like to quote Kleck's research on self defense, and it has been used to impact gun-control legislature. However, it has also been criticized as being poor research. I personally find his study flawed and never use it.

And, as I stated previously, injuries are tracked by the CDC, and the data is widely available. So I'm not sure what it is that we are missing. It is hard to track every attempted injury/homicide because we don't yet live in a police state and if someone shoots at you and no one knows about it, there's nothing to track. However, local police absolutely do track firearm discharges if they are reported. My reading of the article is that McCarthy's problem is not that the data doesn't exist but how the data is classified.

To the best of my knowledge, I never made this claim: " You're being disingenuous when you claim that this research would be done in order "to prove" that gun violence is overwhelming. " I'm not sure what you are referring to?

I've also, other than my comment in the preceding paragraph, never said anything whatsoever about "near misses".

So are you okay with teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools that are funded with Federal Funds? There's a whole host of proposed legislation regarding it based on "scientific" studies. (Don't get me wrong, if you want to teach "Intelligent Design" as part of a Religious curriculum, that's great, but it is not science.)
Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:44:34 -0800 The Stranger
The point of the article, though, is that there's some value in looking at injuries and attempted murders/injuries (ie, "shootings") alongside successful homicides when assessing gun violence. You're being disingenuous when you claim that this research would be done in order "to prove" that gun violence is overwhelming. It isn't. Rather, someone has observed that there's a variable being left out which may be relevant. If we're debating whether or not guns are dangerous, injuries and attempted assaults are just as relevant as successful homicides. They don't simply "not count" as violence (or danger) just because the shooter missed or at least failed to kill their victim.

It's one thing to oppose biased research, wherein it is conducted in a way that leads to inaccurate conclusions. But you have to make a case that this would be the result in expanding our definition of "gun violence" to include more forms of it, including unsuccessful shootings. Otherwise, you're merely opposing the existence of research in a given area and crying "bias," which is basically crying wolf.

There's manipulating research to support a foregone conclusion (bad!), and then there's updating research to address its potential shortcomings (good!). I think there's a case to include unsuccessful shootings in our definition of gun violence, and that's why I support this research idea.

If you care to argue that unsuccessful attempted homicides do not count as gun violence, feel free to argue your case; you might be right. But you should at least admit that anti-gun bias isn't the only reason a person might disagree with you. I own several guns myself, but I don't rely on pretending that near-misses are irrelevant to gun crime in order to feel justified in my gun ownership. And in any case, your point shouldn't include blanket statements about how it's biased to conduct any research in a given area, as the NRA knee-jerkers tend to do.

Such research very well might show a similar lack of correlation between gun ownership and shootings. If you're confident that this would be the case, then you should be clamoring for this research so your point will be proven! If you think that this research would disprove your beliefs, then why believe them in the first place?

Or if your fear is that city/state governments will manipulate their numbers in order to make guns look more dangerous, then why even focus on this cop's idea? Couldn't they fudge the numbers already if that's what they wanted? This person's idea needs to be looked at on its own merit, without resorting to conspiracy theories-- are unsuccessful assaults as relevant as successful ones when evaluating what guns are used for, or not?

If it makes any difference, I also advocate comparing how many of each type of gun are used responsibly vs. irresponsibly, because I believe responsible gun owners are also a relevant variable when assessing the likely danger of any given gun in our society. All the uses of guns should be evaluated- recreation, hunting, protection, threats, injury, murder, and attempts at any of the above. I'm wary of anyone proposing that we ignore any form of gun use when trying to assess dangerous vs. innocuous gun usage.

Good research only promotes political views if they're actually valid. I have no problem with climate science "promoting" the belief in climate change. I have no problem with biological sciences "promoting" the belief in evolution. I have no problem with psychology "promoting" pro-gay beliefs at the expense of the ex-gay quackery you mention. Whatever side of the gun debate this more in-depth research would promote, I'm for it. If I ever find myself wanting to block information about a relevant aspect of an issue, that's a sure sign that I haven't thought out my beliefs properly.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:17:12 -0800 The Stranger Posted by randoma]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:09:45 -0800 The Stranger
Likely, it will corroborate my non-idiotic beliefs. And even if it doesn't, then I, being a non-idiot, will change those beliefs to accommodate the facts.

Gun control, climate change, drug prohibition, whatever the issue: facts are facts and research uncovers them. Only an idiot has a vested interest in preventing that.
Posted by Bonefish]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:57:17 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:12:15 -0800 The Stranger
This thread reminds me of a "death spiral" in skydiving.

Oh, and no one is getting fucking paid to be here. This blog has a real problem with "you disagree with me and so you must be getting paid to do so." Does anyone here really think that this extremely small blog with an extremely small readership is causing lobbying groups to hire scads of paid commenters?

I hate to burst your bubble guys, but you just are not that important. Get over it. No one is spending money to silence you or counteract a bunch of pedantic and sophomoric "arguments."
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 07:14:23 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Haley]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:21:07 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:05:24 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Haley]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:01:17 -0800 The Stranger

Posted by david]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:47:54 -0800 The Stranger
While I have no such mental issues, please reconsider using mental illnesses as a cudgel against people who disagree with you politically. I can't imagine that someone who actually has Aspergers appreciates it.
Posted by doceb]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:17:58 -0800 The Stranger "teh reading comprehension isn't working so well for you today, is it?"

Here, I'll explain this again.
You have to provide a SPECIFIC example of something I said instead of just a GENERALIZED claim.
For example, when I say that you get verbally abusive when presented with facts and opinions that you do not like I can reference a post of yours where you were verbally abusive.
www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/0…

And I can reference the SPECIFIC items where you were verbally abusive in that post.

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

You cannot do that for my posts.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:05:52 -0800 The Stranger
I gave you my explanation, and you explained why you didn't like it. I explained why your dissatisfaction with my explanation is just fine with me.

So why would I be interested in giving you a better explanation? I'm happy with this state of affairs. But you think if you keep repeating yourself, something new will happen?

You're sitting here hectoring because the NRA pays you by the word or something. I dunno. Aspergers? OCD? Something.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:43:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by ExitOnly]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:38:32 -0800 The Stranger Posted by doceb]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:08:16 -0800 The Stranger
He/she/cis was less then forth coming on what was to be well calibrated and functioning as expected, the armament itself or the militia, he implied the former and stated the latter. What constitutes a militia he/she/cis never really addressed. So I can only assume he/she/cis considers the word "militia" meaningless in the context of the 2nd amendment.

Nonetheless I'll accept his/her/cis's definition. That the armament itself should be well regulated, i.e. well calibrated and functioning as expected. And. That the militia be it an individual or a group should also be well regulated.

Now not infringing on citizens rights is no small feat. But surely just as we spell out both in industry standards and product legislation what constitutes a well regulated lawn mower, we can do so for a gun.

Likewise is it that unreasonable that an individual or a group of individual demonstrate some level of well calibrated functioning as expected, understanding and ability to handle the armament they are buying? e.g. complete a gun handling/safety class, prior to purchasing.

At least some evidence that both the armament and the militia are well regulated would then exist.

Or maybe words don't matter.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:58:36 -0800 The Stranger
I get it. I get it. You want to just keep repeating yourself. Proceed. The floor is yours.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:51:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:31:14 -0800 The Stranger
It's just the same bullshit on the other side of the coin.
Posted by doceb]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:23:00 -0800 The Stranger
A social justice tax?
Posted by Getting the guns out of po' people's hands?]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:05:30 -0800 The Stranger
As far as "widespread" use of machineguns before the ban, that simply didn't happen. A select few gangsters used them (mostly stolen, from the Postal Service and not purchased) because they were really expensive, about half the price of a car, at the time. Additionally, the Saint Valentines Day Massacre that you refer to, the victims were lined up against a wall, after being taken there at gunpoint, and then shot. It isn't like having machineguns made the death toll any higher.

You can get a bump fire stock for an AR15 type firearm which essentially allows legal full-auto fire. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever used one in a crime. That's probably because an AR15 costs $800+ (actually currently they're $2k+) and the bump fire stock costs $300+ which puts them out of the range of your typical criminal. Plus, a fully-automatic weapon is much harder to control and actually hit anything when used on full auto. Which is why the army basically only uses full auto weapons for suppression fire.

I've said it before - you really want to reduce firearm violence, put a $300-500 tax on all handguns that cost less than $500.
Posted by randoma]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:40:26 -0800 The Stranger
OK, yes. The NRA Talking Point Sheet says that the "gun grabbers" are just as bad as the gun nuts. Everything that gets said about gun nuts, the same goes double for the anti-gun crowd. The more general term is false equivalence. The purpose is to make the general public lose interest. The NRA desperately wants everyone to stop paying attention to guns, and stop talking about guns.

So congratulations again. You have delivered today's NRA talking points.

Next week? Rinse. Repeat.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:06:17 -0800 The Stranger You think it's an amazing great point that there isn't some obvious big drop off in silencer crimes after the 1934 firearms act.

No, I'm saying the exact opposite. I'm saying that trying to reach any conclusion about the efficacy of a piece of legislation without any data or facts to back up one's opinions is dumb.

Like I said, you're lumping yourself into the same category of fact-haters as the NRA when you try to ignore data to reach a conclusion.
Posted by doceb]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:51:37 -0800 The Stranger
You think it's an amazing great point that there isn't some obvious big drop off in silencer crimes after the 1934 firearms act. Great. Congratulations. I don't see a big problem here. I think anybody who wants to argue that we should experiment with opening the floodgates and letting silencers spread across the land is going to do nothing but make gun nuts look even more crazy. It's obvious that would be a very foolish experiment. You want to be the guy who wants to try that experiment? Be my guest.

I say that it's a good thing that when criminals, or drunks, angry husbands, or random gun nut fuckheads fire a gun, the sound carries a good long way, and it's much easier to tell which direction the shot came from. So witnesses can tell the police where to go. And run for cover, for that matter. And, incidentally, tyrants have not risen and taken over in spite of the restrictions on silencers.

And that goes even more for machine guns. We have been successful with them. And, special pleading aside, we can count the success of all the other countries that did the same thing. Europe and Australia and Japan and so on are free countries, with healthy democracies, little corruption, and lower crime and lower homicide rates than the US. Gun control did not destroy their freedom, and it gets credit for reducing crime there.

But you want more facts? So do I. So does Obama. So do social scientists, and the CDC. Who has stood against learning more? The NRA. That says it all right there.


Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:04:43 -0800 The Stranger
You're lying again and you know it. We've been over this before. Everyone sees how much you lie from one day to the next and you go on pretending the things you say are taken seriously.

Have you not noticed how much you get ignored now? You copy-paste the same shit every day and you get ignored like just another crazy troll or obsessive spammer.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:50:51 -0800 The Stranger