WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Is gun death data "health" related? Why would the NIH need to collect and keep this data?

It affects mortality rates and life expectancy. Really there is little reason to oppose them collecting data except that you suspect the data will not favor one of your political positions.

Quote:

Seems to me to be a pretty good stretch to see how keeping this data in the hands of the NIH serves their mission. Doesn't the DOJ keep this data? Why must yet another federal agency be tasked for this?

In your quote they say one of their fundamental missions is lengthening life. Guns play a significant role in mortality rates.

Quote:

It's government over reach and bloating and redundant.

So keeping a spreadsheet or database or two on this is bloat? It's nothing compared to the crazy defense spending bloat and represents a contribution to the human pool of data that might be useful.

I think you are against it only because you are for guns and think this might reflect badly on guns, it's insignificant as "bloat" and you would be against this data being collected even if it were completely free to do so.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Is gun death data "health" related? Why would the NIH need to collect and keep this data?

It affects mortality rates and life expectancy. Really there is little reason to oppose them collecting data except that you suspect the data will not favor one of your political positions.

Quote:
Seems to me to be a pretty good stretch to see how keeping this data in the hands of the NIH serves their mission. Doesn't the DOJ keep this data? Why must yet another federal agency be tasked for this?

In your quote they say one of their fundamental missions is lengthening life. Guns play a significant role in mortality rates.

Quote:
It's government over reach and bloating and redundant.

So keeping a spreadsheet or database or two on this is bloat? It's nothing compared to the crazy defense spending bloat and represents a contribution to the human pool of data that might be useful.

I think you are against it only because you are for guns and think this might reflect badly on guns, it's insignificant as "bloat" and you would be against this data being collected even if it were completely free to do so.

But it's more then just keeping a spreadsheet on Bob's computer in the lab. The government does nothing small. How about instead, they find out what causes the mindset of the people that use guns in these mass killings? Why are gangs in cities so violent? Why is heart disease still the #1 killer of people?

The NIH has a lot on it's plate already. It does not need to be bloated with more when it hasn't done a lot of the other stuff that needs done. If they have the extra man power then maybe the dept needs some fat trimmed.

Studying and researching gun deaths does nothing other then to advance the liberal cause of more "gun control". We have enough "gun control" already. Besides, the Federal government should be following the Constitution and recommending that states do this research if it is so important.

Maybe start with Chicago. They have some of the strictest guns laws in the world and isn't doing jack to stop any of the gun violence.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

But it's more then just keeping a spreadsheet on Bob's computer in the lab.

Sure that is a bit facetious but honestly how much money do you think it will cost to track this data? I know that it can be done with an amount of money that is completely negligible (less than 250k/year so call it a couple mill for government to do).

Quote:

The government does nothing small. How about instead, they find out what causes the mindset of the people that use guns in these mass killings? Why are gangs in cities so violent? Why is heart disease still the #1 killer of people?

Collecting data on guns does not preclude any of this, and it may well lend useful insight about things like the difference between mass killings and gang violence.

I think America will increasingly find that things like gang violence will not be changed as much but that we could dramatically reduce the mass shootings with some basic common sense regulation.

Now I'll be the first to admit that mass shootings are not very statistically significant and I would find it a reasonable argument that only reducing those might not be worth it to some people (to those who see no utility in guns this would not change that, of course).

Maybe the data will show that it will only reduce mass shootings and suicides significantly but not non-gratuitious crime very much (this is what I think is most likely).

I can see this data being useful to both sides of the gun debate. Maybe (and I'm sure some will disagree but it's just an example idea) we could do something like take guns away, even temporarily, from suicidal people when they are committed to medical care for an attempt at suicide.

Mental health is something we definitely need more government in, I frankly see this as much bigger of a problem than guns.

Quote:

The NIH has a lot on it's plate already. It does not need to be bloated with more when it hasn't done a lot of the other stuff that needs done. If they have the extra man power then maybe the dept needs some fat trimmed.

No way, we need much more mental health investment. It's one of the biggest problems in America. Close to 25% of Americans suffer from mental health issues, the entire world needs to improve our treatment of this and it will actually make a bigger difference towards gun violence than will gun regulation.

Quote:

Studying and researching gun deaths does nothing other then to advance the liberal cause of more "gun control".

Not necessarily. I mean it's reasonable to be concerned that you may have to evaluate your position depending on the numbers that you find out, otherwise you'd be a bit ridiculous if no amount of cost in life would change your mind.

But realistically the numbers are there, 30k or so a year let's call it. Around 1% of deaths. If you already know this and are cool with it (not saying this is wrong, many are cool with other things being legal that kill more people) then it doesn't change things much.

We may just learn that small tweaks to what we do (such as these proposed by Obama) could lessen certain subsets of this substantially. Things like that are useful to know, and don't you want to have your position informed by them? They don't mean you have to change your mind, just as most of us are willing to tolerate a certain amount of deaths for the right to have a drink it's not wrong to have an informed position that x amount of fatality is still acceptable to me.

Quote:

We have enough "gun control" already.

How do we know that without data. What if this data gives us a neat thing we can do that really helps. I don't personally think we have nearly enough gun control and I realize we differ on this.

But to have a good conversation about this the data should help us both. I think not wanting any more data is basically to not want to have the conversation, which I understand if it's not a very academic approach it's certainly a politically pragmatic one (if you like the status quo then any talk or changes are potentially threatening to you).

Quote:

Maybe start with Chicago. They have some of the strictest guns laws in the world and isn't doing jack to stop any of the gun violence.

Maybe we'll learn by studying it that that kind of violence is not hugely influenced by gun control but that mass shootings are. That would be data you might find useful to your position.

There's really no good excuse for being against study except when you don't care about the results and want to preserve the status quo. That's a simple, pragmatic way most people approach politics but I think questioning your position is a better way to go about it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

There's really no good excuse for being against study except when you don't care about the results and want to preserve the status quo. That's a simple, pragmatic way most people approach politics but I think questioning your position is a better way to go about it.

My main beef is that the Federal Govt shouldn't be doing this. I think gun laws, beyond military weapons and such, should be handled at the state level. The Constitution is clear about the Federal govt and infringing with the right to bear arms. I have no problem with states doing so. It's a states rights issue.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

I personally disagree, and think that as long as it's on the state level it is essentially not going to make much of a difference (which may be the point for the opposite side of this argument).

In any case opposing the collection of data just because it might result in that doesn't seem reasonable to me. The data is worth collecting as long as it is impartial and useful and your position should be able to withstand it.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Probably, but I see it as a waste of money and effort better spent elsewhere.

We know guns kill people, we know that people with guns are dangerous, we know that guns sometimes kill by accident and we know that mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns. What is studying more data going to demonstrate?

The only real solution is a complete banning and I will never be behind that.

It's like the ACA. The US needs a single payer plan, not this BS insurance scam we ended up with. If we want to end gun violence, we need to ban guns. That is the only solution and it's not a solution that will happen in America.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

You want the research done by individual states? interesting take.

It would certainly increase employment opportunities for folks in the social sciences who have grad level stats (a requirement up here) to do it that way.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

If we want to end gun violence, we need to ban guns.

not necessarily

research I've seen recently points the finger more at acceptance of violence. There is an interesting area of study looking at why America is more violent than other countries with similar demographics.

Other countries have similar (higher in a few cases) levels of gun ownership, but not nearly the level of gun violence or other violent crime.

I think it could be useful to find out why.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

What other countries have similar demographics?

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

As I recall, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and GB were within the group. It's worth looking up if you're interested in the area of study.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I sock and some lug nuts can do wonders to 'nullify the will" of my interlocutor but I'm not silly enough to presume that this makes my argument the best and one immune from logical assault.

The will of the majority is also a weapon like the Constitution. It does not depend on logical arguments, but rather just "the majority says this, so do it".

If I'm engaging in a purely logical argument about "what is the best thing to do", I can forgo relying on the Constitution because I won't be encountering the "will of the majority" to oppose my logical position.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Do you also include Nambla's man-boy love and their "civil rights"?

My preference would be a system where minors were not considered able to consent to sex, but where people who disagreed were free to argue their position.

Robert Gentel wrote:

So again, you are simply unable to acknowledge that reasonable people can have reasonable disagreements on this. It is an inordinate strength of conviction that undermines how reasonable you or your arguments are.

The idea that my freedom should be abolished is quite appalling to me.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Many are, not all. It is pretty clear that guns do cause some increased mortality. Lots of things do and it's not a huge deal to admit about guns.

I agree that the presence of guns leads to the possibility of death by gun accident. But I do not agree that they increase homicide or suicide rates.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

As I recall, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and GB were within the group. It's worth looking up if you're interested in the area of study.

Maybe if you added all four together. But Australia, for example, has banned guns so what are we going to compare? I found this. Country vs country: Australia and United States compared: Crime stats (BTW, this is a cool site...)

Obviously gun stats are quite skewed, but general crime stats aren't. Australia has more rapes and burglaries than the US. Canada has some interesting stats too.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Well you are either against it [government regulation?] in all cases or you are not. If you are not against it in all cases then your arguments need to explain what cases merit it and what don't because you are for some government regulation in our lives and not others then.

All or nothing in government regulation is an absurd concept. The legitimate role of government is the protection of individual rights. But in no way should regulation ever violate the basic principal of the individual rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. It's really as simple as that.

If a government regulation takes away any right to do anything which does not directly affect the rights of another, it is in my opinion - wrong. Unless it can REASONABLY be expected to violate someone else's right, (my having demonstrated criminal conduct or mental unfitness) then there is no justifiable reason to limit my ownership of a gun.

For another example, the very concept of making possession of a 'controlled substance' a criminal offense is an absurdity and has no justifiable basis under the Constitution. So yes, here's an example of where the USSC gets it wrong.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

If a government regulation takes away any right to do anything which does not directly affect the rights of another, it is in my opinion - wrong.

Guns have been created to do bodily harm to life (People as well as game). WRT people ho live in the US, murder is a violation of ones civil rights to the utmost extent. Thereby, your own words deem some regulation as necessary to protect against violations of others rights, necessary

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

We know guns kill people, we know that people with guns are dangerous, we know that guns sometimes kill by accident and we know that mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns. What is studying more data going to demonstrate?

The only real solution is a complete banning and I will never be behind that.

That might not be true. If we regulate them rigorously we may be able to dramatically reduce some kinds of shootings (especially the mass shootings that terrorize the society more due to their gratuitous and arbitrary nature).

If we try hard to keep mentally unfit people from having guns we may well be able to severely reduce random killing like that.

But yeah, I agree that realistically the only thing that will make a very significant difference is severely restricting guns. But there may be interim regulations that are worthwhile.

Quote:

It's like the ACA. The US needs a single payer plan, not this BS insurance scam we ended up with. If we want to end gun violence, we need to ban guns. That is the only solution and it's not a solution that will happen in America.

I personally agree (with both), and that's why I've never been very into this debate personally because I don't see the US solving this any time soon.

But common sense regulation (like at least the concept of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unfit people) really doesn't seem to have much downside. I think the opposition is largely because of the partisan landscape and low trust conservatives have in Obama.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Robert Gentel wrote:
Do you also include Nambla's man-boy love and their "civil rights"?

My preference would be a system where minors were not considered able to consent to sex, but where people who disagreed were free to argue their position.

That dodges my question. You beg the question by calling gun control advocates who are against "civil rights" and who are therefore "bad people" who you compare to the KKK and Fascists.

Nambla considers their position a "civil right" so do you support their "right" to Man-Boy love or not? And if not does that make you a bad civil rights hater who is comparable to the KKK et all?

Of course not, and it's just as silly when your argument devolves (despite the self image of impeccable logic) to this kind of fallacy.

Quote:

I agree that the presence of guns leads to the possibility of death by gun accident. But I do not agree that they increase homicide or suicide rates.

Well I think the science on this shows you to be wrong (see the Harvard School of Public Health's study on this):

Quote:

We performed reviews of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on suicide rates. The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States. The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling.

And ironically this is exactly why this should be studied as a public health issue. To actually use science to answer this question.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Obviously gun stats are quite skewed, but general crime stats aren't.

they all are. you've got to be pretty fussy when you're sorting out what's being compared

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Going forward, should the president enact these regs by executive order, Itd be interesting if the NRA minions would challenge it in court . Imagine it being adjudicated in the Fed district 6 (where the political trees all lean right). I say that it would be successfully defeated in that region. Then , in this case, the defene would take it to the USSC.
I wonder how the USSC would treat the entire thing.
In my mind, should they find to support the challenge (basically affirm the lower court), that would say that the entire GOP leaning govt is overly and fatally influenced by the gun lobby and the gun and ammo industry.

Ive heard herein from the " defense of concept" that has been presented by oralloy and leadfoot and have concluded that their arguments are certainly weak at best.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

But common sense regulation (like at least the concept of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unfit people) really doesn't seem to have much downside. I think the opposition is largely because of the partisan landscape and low trust conservatives have in Obama.

Here lies the issue. Whose common sense? I dare say that my level of common sense and say someone like Glitterbug's common sense towards gun law are vastly huge. I know guns are dangerous, that's why you treat them as though they are always loaded. Once determined to no longer be loaded, they are no more harmful than a screwdriver. I have no fear of guns. Only people holding them.

Who determines who the mentally unfit people are? An arbitrary list does not seem to be the best way of determining how mentally fit someone is. Does everyone in America have to take and pass a "mentally fit" test? Do they get a scarlet letter so they can't get guns?

These are some of the issues I see.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

If I had a choice between a gun and a screwdriver to get hit in the head........

0 Replies

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know