Dear NRA, There Is A Scientific Consensus On Guns And Safety. And You Won't Like It.

[Rigby5]

By the way, what is pronounced HIPPA, is actually spelled HIPAA.

There is no possible scientific survey one can conduct on gun control because there is no way create a control group and do experimentation to collect statistics.
In fact, there is no way to even standardize what is considered a positive result.
For example, if you just consider murder rates, then not only would you find gun control is wonderful, but you would find the preventive detention is even better.

Obviously the world has dangers, and historically weapons are necessary.
Those who think that it is the police who should supply those weapons, are idiots.
Police not only have way too long of a response time, but police/government/military corruption is one of the main reasons we had to commit an armed rebellion from Gt. Britain.
Human history is full of monarchies and feudalism, and if you look as why they started to change into democratic republics around 1500, it was due to the mass production of firearms that leveled the playing field of the general population, against the evil thugs of the dictators.
So anyone who is for gun control, is actually just wanting to revert back to the dictatorships of before 1500.

 

[bripat9643]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

 

[bripat9643]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

There isn't a single fact in that spew. Opinions are not facts. Get that through your fucking head.

 

[bripat9643]

Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.

The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.

No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations. but Look what we have in the Congress

Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.[45][46][47]

Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

 

[bripat9643]

EVERY mass shooter has had mental issues. Thanks to the ACLU those reports can't be shared with all of the relevent agency's so these guys are allowed to have weapons, and in some cases their freedom, when they shouldn't. Many of these mass shooters should have been in mental institutions for years instead of walking the streets.

The problems arise when government makes mistakes and classifies someone as a danger who isn't. Further the classification of people as mentally unstable is a favorite tactic of progressive governments to control people they don't like. It should be difficult to take a persons rights away. Very difficult. But the tools need to be there to do so. Furthermore it MUST be a PUBLIC record so that the work of government can be checked to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and not violating the rights of people they don't like.

thanks to he ACLU? Ahem, if the ACLU takes a case to court and the government loses it is up the the local, state, and federal legislatures to solve the issues. Why do you blame people who actually fight for liberties?

Oh right, your ideological myopia

The laws that prevent the sharing of patient, and criminal information derive from lawsuits the ACLU brought forth. The ACLU has made it very difficult to disarm the very people that NEED to be disarmed.

Don't blame the ACLU for poorly written laws. Blame the general public for not electing leaders that can write good law.

The ACLU's interest should be one of pro-gun regulation if we were to lean towards politicizing every argument. But principles are what liberals fight with and for. American Civil Liberties Union.

No one can convince me that there are no ways available to balance privacy rights and the peoples right to bear arms in gun regulations. but Look what we have in the Congress

Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.[45][46][47]

Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

It doesn't matter how many times you point that out, they will still pretend not to get it.

 

[bripat9643]

Gun shop ordered to pay millions to injured police officers

And the NRA sure took heat from the Democratic Debate this evening.

Page Not Found

 

[Vastator]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

Work from the top, down. Disarm the police, and military (our employees) first. Then we'll talk...

 

[miketx]

Scientific concensus = Voodoo witch hunt.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

Consensus once said the world was flat.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.[45][46][47]

Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country

Mein Gott!

The phrase suggests only that the signatories to the document are speaking collectively as they did previously on matters of abuse, liberty and a break with England. The phrase has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

It does nothing of the sort. We know douchebag morons like you infer it. However, there is no rational justification for such an inference. People like me interpret documents based on what they actually say, not based on all our prejudices and fantasies.

 

[Frannie]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

There is a scientific conpnsus on knives too, and on rocks so you want rocks banned

Only 6 year olds use the word sci conpenses

You are a religious fool

 

[westwall]

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

Stupid question ^^^. Not surprising, given the poster.

"We the People" suggests we are a democratic country, but no mention is made in COTUS, it is inferred, something which must be too abstract for some.

And the COTUS was written SPECIFICALLY to protect the Rights of the individual. Not the Mob, who the Founders detested.

 

[miketx]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

Consensus once said the world was flat.

That consensus was brought about by the brightest and best minds science has to offer! Much like this was:

 

[Rigby5]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.

Not exactly.
The word "oxymoron" means the phrase uses conflicting descriptors, like "jumbo shrimp" or "pretty ugly".
It is not unreasonable for someone to want a scientific consensus.
The problem is that the consensus that Dante is creating, is not at all "scientific".
First of all you can't use polling and be scientific, and second is that you can only use scientific experts in the fields of crime.
Someone with medical experience in treating gunshot wounds for example, would have absolutely ZERO scientific experience in the causes or conditions of gun violence.
You don't want experts in guns, but in violence.
What you would want to do is determine what is causing the increase, and what the best way to diminish it is, that actually fixes things instead of just suppressing symptoms.
And there is nothing like that provided.

 

[Rigby5]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.

There isn't a single fact in that spew. Opinions are not facts. Get that through your fucking head.

Agreed.
Correlation is NOT an indication of causation.
For example, homes with guns could experience much more violence because homes with guns are in neighborhoods that ARE already much more violent, so then need the guns.
There is no way to indicate that having the gun caused the violence at all.

And the claim that guns are NOT used for self defense more than they are used for crime is proven a lie.
Even the DOJ admits guns prevent over 2.5 million violent crimes each year.
The fact statistics claiming otherwise try to imply you have no prevented a crime unless you have shot and killed the criminal, and that is almost never the case.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun Fetishists are notoriously ignorant about the ACLU.

Second Amendment

American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Gun rights – The national ACLU's position is that the Second Amendment protects a collective right to own guns, rather than an individual right (some state affiliates consider the Second Amendment to refer to individual gun rights). The national organization's position is based on the phrases "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State". However, the ACLU opposes any effort to create a registry of gun owners and has worked with the National Rifle Association to prevent a registry from being created and has favored protecting the right to carry guns under the 4th Amendment.[45][46][47]

Only cretins ignore the fact that the ACLU upholds all rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, and a quick Google search will find plenty of instances where it has done so.

Then again every OP topic that mentions guns always attracts the dullards who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

What is truly amusing is the use of the word "PEOPLE" in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments are universally agreed to mean THE INDIVIDUAL. Only the Second (which progressives despise) is the PEOPLE considered to mean "collective". What a bunch of fucking morons.

How do you view 'We the People..." in the Preamble? As an individual or the collective?

Doesn't matter. The preamble is just that, the preamble, the Bill of Rights on the other hand are consistent in their meaning. Only progressives try and abuse the meaning of the 2nd.

The Preamble is both a vision statement for a new democratic experiment in government and a mission statement for all who followed the founders.

Claiming it is something less than that is disingenuous and dangerous. In fact the Preamble is part of the original COTUS and the Bill of Rights came two years later. All are part of the COTUS but only the Preamble stands alone as the philosophical basis of the rest.

Stating the 2nd A. is a clear statement of anything is absurd, based on the vague verbiage and in both extreme interpretations.

Where does the preamble mention democracy?

It does not at all matter if "we the people" is collective or individual, because the result is the same, which is a total prohibition on any federal jurisdiction over any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. It is all restrictions on federal jurisdiction, and nothing else. So regardless of the motive for the 2nd amendment, the result is the same, which is that any and all federal weapons laws are entirely and completely illegal.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it

Just one more thing that may pit many conservatives against scientific inquiry. There are lots of liberals who own guns, but conservatives have a special place in their hearts for the NRA and lately a special place in their hearts for despising scientific inquiry

So I decided to determine objectively, through polling, whether there was scientific consensus on firearms. What I found won't please the National Rifle Assn.


My first step was to put together a list of relevant scientists. I decided that to qualify for the survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that he or she should be an active scientist — someone who had published an article in the last four years. I was interested in social science and policy issues, so I wanted the articles to be directly relevant. I was not interested in scientists doing research in forensics, history, medical treatment, psychiatric issues, engineering or non-firearms (for example, nail guns, electron guns).

Scientific consensus isn't always right, but it's our best guide to understanding the world. Can reporters please stop pretending that scientists, like politicians, are evenly divided on guns? We're not.

​

Let the denial begin...

 

[Dan Stubbs]

a gun in the home increases the risk that a woman living in the home will be a victim of homicide (72% agree, 11% disagree) and that

a gun in the home makes it a more dangerous place to be (64%) rather than a safer place (5%). There is consensus that

guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%) and that the change to

more permissive gun carrying laws has not reduced crime rates (62% vs. 9%).

Finally, there is consensus that strong gun laws reduce homicide (71% vs. 12%).

Facts that the gun fetishists won't like one iota so I am predicting that there will be a great deal of whining once this thread comes to their attention.