Why Americans Love Guns

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by slipthejab, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I know you joke, but it's genuinely very distressing to me that we have such a powerful party actively undermining scientific research, public trust in science and public understanding of science. Evolution, gun control, climate change, the criminal justice system, whatever, there's this idea that not only is all of the science partisan, it's a buffet table that you can pick and choose from.
     
  2. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    Climate change is like gun control
     
  3. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    That's for another thread, but I'd be happy to discuss it with you. My own research is predicated on climate change.
     
  4. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    One thing Ben Goldacre pushes for is using science and trials in politics and policy making.
    For example if doing A or B might improve education in children then run a trial on A and B where some kids get one and some the other. See which is best.
    At the moment we have politicians arguing over which is best with scant evidence base and an almost automatic "well if they favour A we, as the opposition party, have to favour B".
     
  5. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    But think about it....climate control isn't "LIKE" gun control in many ways? :rolleyes:
     
  6. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    I think it's worse than that. We have businesses that actively profit by denying or delaying scientific research for as long as possible and they have much louder voices in our government than science currently does.

    Both of them are the center of politically charged debates? If you have a point, you're free to make it.
     
  7. matveimediaarts

    matveimediaarts Underappreciated genius

    Not all science is partisan, but it does have a centuries-old tendency towards being highly political. Regimes have been sponsoring the arts and sciences for all sorts of horrible things as long as they've all existed. IOW, science generally is value-free and useful; but tends to become corrupt by State/corporatist funding.
     
  8. Mangosteen

    Mangosteen Hold strong not

    I think it's from Alan Alda said something in his book like "Hold strong not to ideology"

    Possibly my favourite quote next to "surely, God loves the 0.06 nearly as much as the 0.05” (Rosnow & Rosenthal)

    It's what most political parties and leaders do, hold strong to ideology. Not just the political spectrum in the USA but think of Mao Zedong, UKIP and the like. A strong cling to ideology is silly in the face of overwhelming evidence or if that ideology if oppressive (Nazi party).

    Honestly the argument that guns allow average americans to overthrow the government seems to be based on outdated ideology that didnt anticipate missiles.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  9. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Sure.

    I'd distinguish between research and it's applications. Nazi scientists might have studied rocketry, for example, but they put it to a much different use than the US space program. That doesn't make the conclusions or research that they performed any less valid.

    I agree, science should be political. We should base our political decisions on scientific research whenever possible. Also agree that funding should not be used to steer science, but often is. As is denial of funding come to think of it. I'm friends with a scientist who has been offered full funding for her lab for a decade if she would cease researching the harmful effects of certain industrial chemicals and turn her attention elsewhere :O

    edit: Science is justified by its own methodology; that is, good science is good science because it is good science. But good science can still be used for bad. :]
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  10. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    One of my students displayed incredible effort in constructing and running her own experiment. At some point late in the semester, after she had started data analysis I found her sobbing in the lab (a common past time for scientists actually) because her p-value came out to 0.0500068. She didn't know that her results were pretty much significant and thought that she would fail the class.
    :[
     
  11. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Physical sciences and social sciences aren't remotely the same even though they're both "science." Climate change is a matter of physical sciences. Gun rights versus gun control, crime rates, etc, are matters of social sciences. Being an expert in one doesn't make one an expert in the other; that's why my degrees (BA in history from Tufts University, magna cum laude, and JD from the University of Oregon) and my eight years of practicing appellate law and complex civil litigation doesn't qualify me to publish medical papers. Because my research experience is in social sciences, not physical sciences. But the reverse is also true. I don't think a bunch of MDs and researchers in medical science, even medical researchers with extensive experience in the peer review process, can step into a matter of social sciences and automatically be better-qualified for the role than people whose training is in social sciences.

    And yes, the FBI does have experienced and talented researchers and investigators too (that's exactly what an "FBI analyst" does)...researchers with backgrounds in more appropriate fields for this issue than medical science.

    And yes, there have been limited instances where the CDC has crossed that line in the past, even though their core mission is still focused on medical issues (just browse their website for two minutes and it's clear where 99% of their energies go). But just because the CDC has been assigned to research some social sciences issues in the past (with their research on domestic violence), doesn't mean they're the right choice for all future social sciences issues. I mean, we also in the past have deployed the National Guard overseas...doesn't mean that it automatically makes sense to do so in the future when that's outside of the scope of their core mission, and there are other military divisions far more appropriate for the role (i.e., front-line divisions and the reserve).

    Giovanni, this isn't as simple as "liberal versus conservative." Fun fact: I voted for Obama twice, and I'm an outspoken supporter of gay marriage and universal health care.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  12. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    It's not an either-or choice. People can and do campaign for changes in policing while ALSO wanting the legal right to have a Plan B in place when society's Plan A fails for whatever reason (whether it be apparent racial animus by the police, as was the case when the LAPD abandoned Koreatown, or whether it be natural disaster that cuts off uniformed forces from certain communities for a period of time, or whether it be something else).

    Open carry is legal in some jurisdictions and not others. It's legal where I live and, while this is inevitably a shock to people who grow up where firearms are banned or nearly-banned, it really doesn't cause any problems (criminals would conceal their firearm until the commission of a crime because they want the benefit of surprise; people who open-carry are generally not out to commit crimes, but instead doing it either for convenience/ergonomics or as a political statement, but essentially never are on their way to commit a crime with a weapon open-carried). I doubt open carry was legal in Los Angeles during the LA riots, but when a city is engulfed in riots and the police have abandoned a neighborhood to rioters, the question "is it legal for a citizen to guard their home or business with a firearm open-carried" seems kind of irrelevant, because law enforcement has already abandoned that neighborhood to illegal violence, arson, murder, etc. If law enforcement has said "not our problem" when people are getting beaten in the street and buildings are being set on fire with people inside, I really doubt that a rifle or shotgun slung over the shoulder of someone guarding their home/business is where they're going to decide to re-intervene.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  13. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    This is really simply just not true. You can do studies on risk factors of alcohol abuse, for example, from a medical perspective. You can go genic and look at specific alleles that are associated with alcoholism or you can look at social factors such as family history, economic bracket, neighborhood, education status, etc., etc. The CDC did studies that approach public health problems with both methods.

    No, it doesn't qualify you to publish any scientific papers as far as I know. I've done a fair bit of work in conservation law and policy and there are many, many great policy papers out there on conservation not written by scientists. But inevitably they rely upon the work of scientists to inform them as to the facts of the matter. The non-scientists might decide upon policy, but they draw on the data generated through scientific inquiry. Don't get me wrong - I see room for the social sciences (even though they are just a bunch of pot smoking hippies), but there is a collaboration between those who do the hard studies and those who attempt to suggest what should be done with those facts. No one says "Well, there's a BATFE so it's really inappropriate for the CDC to do research on tobacco or tobacco risk factors."

    Not only did the lead researcher of the paper that got the CDC shut down have experience researching firearm violence, he had ten years of experience researching that very topic! If ten years of published scientific research does not qualify one as an expert, well, shoot, no more experts to be found then. No one had a problem with the CDC researching firearm violence until they began returning results that did not meet with the NRA's approval (and the NRA had enough clout to pull their funding).

    Backgrounds in medical science and public health train you how to ask and answer questions. A common question is about risk factors. For example, instead of researching gun violence, you could research fatal auto accidents using the same methodology. If the FBI is perfectly qualified to produce scientific and peer reviewed papers, why did they not? The funding that was allocated to the CDC for researching gun violence was not allocated to another agency for the same purpose; it was given back to the CDC but earmarked for researching brain injuries.

    Public health is a medical issue. That includes injury from social factors.

    They are still assigned to research 'social issues'. When you talk about risk factors for any sort of disease/injury/injury prevention/etc. they will be 'social issues'.
     
  14. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Exactly right. EXACTLY right. If you have a study that says the cofactors for increasing the risk of gun violence are drug usage, past domestic abuse and alcohol abuse, you have a really simple list of folks that should not be owning guns. The only way to justify such a list is the use of rigorous and robust research! But of course, this might be construed as advocating for gun control so I suppose we shouldn't bother.

    That legal right is given to some people and not others.

    http://my.firedoglake.com/blog/2014...g-that-killed-a-young-black-man-in-a-walmart/
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  15. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Why the hell are you acting like I support the "shoot first, ask questions later" policies that some PDs have toward African-Americans? In fact, I've already complained about the LAPD's treatment of Korean-Americans a few posts ago.

    But that's not an issue of open carry being at fault any more than Amadou Diallo's shooting was about cell phones. It's a race issue.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2015
  16. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    The point is that race issues are complexed with gun rights issues. Although open carry might provide safety for some people, it does not provide safety for others. In fact it makes them targets of institutional violence.
     
  17. philosoraptor

    philosoraptor carnivore in a top hat Supporter

    Just pointing out: They banned research from the CDC that supported gun control. They did not ban research into gun violence. They did not allocate those funds to other agencies. This is a clear attempt to use funding to steer the conclusions of science.
     
  18. Mitlov

    Mitlov Shiny

    Just pointing out that open carry laws have nothing to do with the Walmart shooting, because he was carrying a toy (in a store that sells the toy), not a firearm, and carrying a toy is legal everywhere for everyone.

    You suggest that open carry laws contribute to institutionalized violence against African-Americans. The following other things have contributed to "institutionalized violence" by police against African-Americans recently, up to and including shootings:

    Walking along the side of the road
    Delivering newspapers
    Getting out of a car when stopped by police
    Not getting out of a car when stopped by police
    Riding public transportation
    Driving a nice car
    Driving a run-down car
    Walking home from a party at Yale while attending Yale
    Retrieving ID from a car when instructed to do so by police
    Snowball fights
    Selling cigarettes
    Talking on a cell phone

    If your concern is law enforcement treatment of a minority, we need to direct your concern at that specific issue directly, because "open carry of firearms" is not the officer's justification in a statistically-significant number of these cases (I actually can't think of a single one where it was). If the Huey P. Newton Gun Club was getting mowed down by police snipers during their open-carry rallies about race issues, things would be different, and we could talk about how lawful open carry was being used as a justification for institutionalized violence...but even in that hypothetical, the problem would be institutionalized violence against a racial minority, not the open carry laws.

    Kind of like how if a racist officer beat up a Muslim woman for wearing a burqa, the problem would be institutionalized bigotry, not burqa-wearing.
     
  19. raaeoh

    raaeoh never tell me the odds

    Still debating why I love my guns I See. The fact is because we do. you can argue points all daY it come down to the fact that I like most others just think they are cool
     
  20. 47MartialMan

    47MartialMan Valued Member

    And 'Mericans can own as many with as many bullets as they can (Except of some restrictions in the pansie liberal states)

    Aint nuthin like shooting real bullets than being on a couch "pretending" to shot real bullets
     

Share This Page