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

[flacaltenn]

I want a full out battleship. The kind that the Fed govt ENCOURAGED privateers to sail in the 18th and 19th century.. 12 cannon and 32knots ought to do..

 

[flacaltenn]

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...

Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.

There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..

So like others your argument isn't about science, it's about ideology.

Say WHAAAT? The ideology of a College curriculum catalog?? Lots of things in there called sciences that really truely are not..

 

[Dante]

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...

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!

survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

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.​

 

[Dante]

When have I ever said SCOTUS was to be ignored? Ignorance (sic) is YOUR schtick, junior.

Ignored? So does the Supreme Court get to decide and that is the end of it, unless an amendment process overrides them, or new legislation is passed and tested, or...

at some point all you wingers do is masturbate with words. The Supreme Court is the final word...on cases brought before the courts -- do you agree westwall ?

 

[Dante]

Why? Because we like things that you don't? Because we can actually DO things with our hands? Because we are creative in ways that your tiny little brain can not imagine? Because we are self reliant and when the chips are down and the neighborhood is underwater the neighbors come to us while you sit curled up, quivering in a ball in the corner of your bedroom?

Face it dude. You have nothing to offer. You know NOTHING about the subject as I have repeatedly demonstrated. You're a leech with a tiny imagination, and even tinier mind, and the mere thought that there are people out there who can actually do things just scares the shit out of you.

Too bad. Grow up.

Grow up? You're the one who posts as if you were actually living on a poorly written tome written by nut job Ayn Rand

 

[Dante]

I want a full out battleship. The kind that the Fed govt ENCOURAGED privateers to sail in the 18th and 19th century.. 12 cannon and 32knots ought to do..

I want to be able to purchase and own a tactical nuke

 

[Dante]

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...

Excuse me.. There's a big difference between political "science" and SCIENCE.
Having the requisite ignorant bliss of science that liberal arts leftists often have -- that might not have occurred to you before you went off on the rant.

There's not a lot of physics or math or chemistry involved in lying with statistics. Which is the basis of most academic work in political or social "science"..

So like others your argument isn't about science, it's about ideology.

Say WHAAAT? The ideology of a College curriculum catalog?? Lots of things in there called sciences that really truely are not..

When people consistently attack others on an ideological level, offering the attack as proof that the other's opinions or links to opinions or statements cannot possible be truthful, credible or taken seriously -- you have what Dante has accused many here of -- Ideological in place of anything else including scientific argument.

There is no denying that people who watch FOX News or consume a steady diet of other right wing media think alike on an ideological level and have begun a recent attack on the sciences

 

[Iceweasel]

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

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.​

Understanding the world in that context means understanding a particular opinion depending on how it was collected. If that's science to you I have some chicken feet to sell you for your next seance.

 

[Dante]

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

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.​

Understanding the world in that context means understanding a particular opinion depending on how it was collected. If that's science to you I have some chicken feet to sell you for your next seance.

you could never argue with the research behind it all because that would demand a level of critical thinking skills you sorely lack

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

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

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

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

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

 

[Old Rocks]

Andy Kiersz/Business Insider

Now that is a significant reduction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

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

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Dante]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

 

[flacaltenn]

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...

"Polling" Only a complete moron could possibly think that polling for an OPINION, is scientific!

survey the researcher should have published on firearms in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,

So, how is a survey, that is based on VOLUNTARY polling data....science?

This should be all sorts of funny....

from the author, who unlike you is not anonymous and publishes

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.​

Again --- you jazz up this "poll" anyway you please. My objection is to your (and the authors) hokey characterization of a poll as science. IT's not -- as Westwall remarked. FURTHERMORE --- this jerk flippantly EXCLUDED any scientists from the polling when he pruned out all the forensics, medical, psych, engineering folks from his sampling. That's TRULY ODD isn't it Dante?? To exclude all the scientists in the field and yet dress this poll up as "science" ????

Knock your bad self out with a poll of pure academics publishing OPINION and playing loose with statistics.
Just don't color it as "science"..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

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

How does the gun do that?

There is consensus that guns are not used in self-defense far more often than they are used in crime (73% vs. 8%)


A consensus of opinion isn't the same as proof. How many times are guns used in self-defense?
How many times are they used in crimes? And how do you know?

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

What were the murder rates in Chicago and DC when guns were illegal in those cities?
Did the murder rates decline when the strong gun laws were passed?

Strong national gun laws reduce homocide;

19 Years Ago, Australia Passed Strict Gun Control Laws — Here Are the Shocking Results

In the 18 years before the Port Arthur attack and passage of the NFA, Australians endured 13 mass shootings,claiming 112 lives. In the years following the bans and buybacks, firearm-related deaths plummeted, and mass shootings became largely a thing of the past.

In 2012, the Guardian published new statistics drawnfrom the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime andSmall Arms Survey showing only "30 homicides by firearm" annually in Australia, or "0.14 per 100,000 population."

The U.S. statistics are bloated by comparison. Over the same period, Americans suffered "9,146 homicides by firearm," at a rate of 2.97 for every 100,000 people. Sixty percent of murders in the U.S. are committed with a gun, according to the Guardian, compared to 11.5% in Australia.

I love that last line. It's the kind of thing that just sails thru the ears of a lefty..

60% of murders in US vs 11.5% of murders in Aussieland. Meaning that 88.5% of murderers DownUnder have found new and novel ways of killing people..

 

[flacaltenn]

Andy Kiersz/Business Insider

Now that is a significant reduction.

Not only are 88.5% of murderers going back to machetes and crossbows --- but your graph belies the MOST IMPORTANT statistic. The ONLY one that really counts. The death toll from homicide... Silly leftists. they get all distracted by the colors and shapes and don't really understand what issue they are trying to solve...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Strong national gun laws reduce homicide;

There were very strong gun laws in Chicago and DC, didn't help one bit.

above is just one more in a long string of imbecilic posts

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

mention something national and they go to cities and sometimes states

It's a shame when your local laws don't work. LOL!
Have the easier CCW laws over the last 20 years caused a spike in homicides?
Or are national laws the only ones that work in liberal imbecile world?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Andy Kiersz/Business Insider

Now that is a significant reduction.

226 gun deaths in 2012? Impossible!!!
Don't they know guns are banned?

 

[flacaltenn]

Andy Kiersz/Business Insider

Now that is a significant reduction.

226 gun deaths in 2012? Impossible!!!
Don't they know guns are banned?

That probably includes a few terrorists who didn't get the message.
HEY -- good time to go with unarmed Bobbies on Bicycles. Seems safe enough down there.

There's another prob with Ole'Rocks chart there. The Lott chart on total Homicides gives it away. Must be slipping because I just noticed it. Those pretty red/blue numbers include suicides and accidents and probably police killings. Because the numbers are too damn high to be just homicides.

So now -- we're back to sucking car exhaust or carrying a freshly cut mackerel out to the beach hoping for a Great White shark to come by and take me to a better place.