18
   

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

 
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:32 am
@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 oppose any regulation that bears the label "common sense". Anything with such a label is bound to be a grave violation of civil rights.


Robert Gentel wrote:
I think the opposition is largely because of the partisan landscape and low trust conservatives have in Obama.

If gun rights advocates oppose a given gun control proposal, it will be because they have a specific objection to that specific proposal.

For instance, I oppose the background check system specifically because it has been transformed into a weapon against the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Trusting the President or not will not make gun rights activists start supporting gun control. The only thing that will work is addressing their objections to whatever is being proposed.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:33 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
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?

I thought it answered your question, just with a bit more detail than a simple yes or no answer. But for a straight up yes or no answer to the question: No, I do not support their right.


Robert Gentel wrote:
And if not does that make you a bad civil rights hater who is comparable to the KKK et all?

The KKK and the gun control movement both try to violate existing civil rights that are a long-established part of the culture of my country.

This other group is trying to introduce a new right that is not an established part of my culture, and is even counter to my culture's values.


Robert Gentel wrote:
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.

For a counter view:
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:50 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
I wonder how the USSC would treat the entire thing.

They are at present refusing to hear any more gun cases until more conservative justices are added to their ranks.

Once that happens, they'll resume striking down unconstitutional gun laws as soon as they get done eviscerating PP v Casey.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 06:01 am
@oralloy,
THEY can only "refuse to hear" which does not get resurrected when and if they stack the court. Its case by case
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 07:32 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
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
A prime example of absurdity. I'm sure someone has pointed out that target shooting is a popular sport to you.

First, your rational assumes criminal intent of every individual without probable cause.
Second, it would call for regulation of most anything that could be used for bodily harm - Bow & arrow, knives, baseball bats, etc.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 08:17 am
@Leadfoot,
you should read the context of what I responded to before you make up silly crap to serve as your best "logic"
Quote:
First, your rational assumes criminal intent of every individual without probable cause
As solid string of incorrect assertions. I assume no such thing.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 08:19 am
@farmerman,
interestingly, e have no way to even study the correctness of your last statement because the Congress has relieved the NIH from collecting such data.

Stop the "Around the barn" trips of fancy and discuss the point I posed
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:35 am
@McGentrix,
Why do you glom onto just one term there? Fine, take out that it's "common sense" if that is the sticking point and then what disagreement do you have? Do you want to keep guns away from mentally unsound people or not? If you agree then where's the beef?
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:38 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I oppose any regulation that bears the label "common sense". Anything with such a label is bound to be a grave violation of civil rights.


That is a demonstrably false* and incredibly silly absolutism.

* See: "common sense gun rights"

Quote:
Robert Gentel wrote:
I think the opposition is largely because of the partisan landscape and low trust conservatives have in Obama.

If gun rights advocates oppose a given gun control proposal, it will be because they have a specific objection to that specific proposal.


Nonsense, the majority of people (on both sides of this debate) are knee jerk reactionaries and are not taking a thoughtful approach to their positions. Whatever disagreements you and I have you are much more informed than the average person on this issue.
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:47 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
But for a straight up yes or no answer to the question: No, I do not support their right.


So according to your own logic you are a person who wants to deny "civil rights" then right? And according to you again, this makes you a "bad person" and comparable to the "KKK" and "Fascists"?

Quote:
The KKK and the gun control movement both try to violate existing civil rights that are a long-established part of the culture of my country.

This other group is trying to introduce a new right that is not an established part of my culture, and is even counter to my culture's values.


You should simply admit that there are rights you like and rights you don't (you describe them as ones that are part of your culture and ones that are not) and stop pretending that you have some moral high ground to compare anyone advocating gun control to the KKK et al as people who want to deny "civil rights". That was just silly rhetoric.


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


For a counter view:
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html


This is just an excerpt from a book that predates some of the studies I cited and says that based on evaluating a handful of studies there is "probably not" an increase, it is not scientific study itself it is just on the level of gainsay.

But that seems to be the point here, the objection to the collection of the data makes it clear that scientific answers aren't as important as automatic gainsay.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 11:14 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
@farmerman,
interestingly, e have no way to even study the correctness of your last statement because the Congress has relieved the NIH from collecting such data.

Stop the "Around the barn" trips of fancy and discuss the point I posed
Naw, as I've said twice before, I don't care enough about the NIH issue or gathering statistics in general to belabor the point. But glad to hear that Congress has stopped making my physician ask me about guns. I had decided to decline the questions after my last physical. Wonder if that would have been considered a crime?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:17 pm
@Leadfoot,
fortunately my life is free of such paranoia .
parados
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 01:33 pm
@McGentrix,
You have to be careful comparing crime stats between countries. The definition of a particular crime and how it is recorded can vary widely from country to country.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:09 pm
@parados,
Even from city to city.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2016 10:17 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Why do you glom onto just one term there? Fine, take out that it's "common sense" if that is the sticking point and then what disagreement do you have? Do you want to keep guns away from mentally unsound people or not? If you agree then where's the beef?


Because it's one gun control advocates use often. "Common sense" implies any one against it must not have any common sense which then has other implications. And, even if you take it out and just say gun laws, it's still the Federal Government making restrictions that it shouldn't be.

Why are you so opposed to States being in charge of gun laws for it's people? Do you think someone other than an individuals doctor should be diagnosing peoples mental abilities? Would you feel comfortable having a government employee deciding which rights apply to you and which ones don't?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 01:09 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Why do you glom onto just one term there? Fine, take out that it's "common sense" if that is the sticking point and then what disagreement do you have? Do you want to keep guns away from mentally unsound people or not? If you agree then where's the beef?

That term "common sense" is a problem all by itself. Even if it could have a positive connotation, it's been used so often to justify outrageous gun laws that it will inspire mistrust in a proposal that gun rights advocates would otherwise agree to.

If mentally unsound means that someone is truly dangerous with a gun, I agree with preventing them from getting a gun.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 01:10 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I oppose any regulation that bears the label "common sense". Anything with such a label is bound to be a grave violation of civil rights.

That is a demonstrably false* and incredibly silly absolutism.

* See: "common sense gun rights"

I tried Googling it. Most of the results referred to either Bernie Sanders and his claim to be pro-gun, or to pro-gun people who were proposing the phrase as a counter to the term as used in support of outrageous gun laws.

Despite his claims to be pro-gun, Senator Sanders meets my definition of an anti-gun extremist.


Robert Gentel wrote:
Nonsense, the majority of people (on both sides of this debate) are knee jerk reactionaries and are not taking a thoughtful approach to their positions. Whatever disagreements you and I have you are much more informed than the average person on this issue.

Well, maybe. But there are a lot of other gun rights advocates who are also highly informed. I'm not unique.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 01:11 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
So according to your own logic you are a person who wants to deny "civil rights" then right? And according to you again, this makes you a "bad person" and comparable to the "KKK" and "Fascists"?

The KKK and Fascists seek to violate rights that my culture cherishes.

Gun control advocates seek to violate rights that my culture cherishes.

Nambla proposes a right that is counter to my culture's values.


Robert Gentel wrote:
You should simply admit that there are rights you like and rights you don't (you describe them as ones that are part of your culture and ones that are not) and stop pretending that you have some moral high ground to compare anyone advocating gun control to the KKK et al as people who want to deny "civil rights". That was just silly rhetoric.

I don't cede the high ground. I defend civil rights that my culture cherishes. They violate civil rights that my culture cherishes.


Robert Gentel wrote:
But that seems to be the point here, the objection to the collection of the data makes it clear that scientific answers aren't as important as automatic gainsay.

We've seen so many "studies" come up with nonsensical claims that it's just heard to trust the idea of more studies.

And then also, it is hard to see what point the studies would have even if we could ensure that they were fair and accurate. Even if it were definitely true that guns caused a problem, we'd insist on keeping our guns.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 09:31 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
fortunately my life is free of such paranoia .
You know farmer, your life would be so much richer if you got metaphor and hyperbole.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  5  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2016 10:36 am
I know when the elderly become too dangerous to drive, in some States, they can't get their license renewed. A doctor doesn't make that decision but the state. Doctors can make referrals but the decision is the States.

Aging Drivers and the Law

It makes only common sense to have similar guidelines (more uniform would be better)or laws for people with diminished mental capacity to go through some kind of test to see if they are able to handle a firearm.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 05:02:00