wmw999 2,583 #26 February 2, 2013 If someone goes into research looking to prove that guns cause violence, then they're the wrong person to conduct that research. From the quotes provided, that might be the case for Rosenberg and/or O'Carroll. Of course, those quotes might be taken out of context. If someone goes into research looking to prove that guns are good and solve problems, they're also not the person to conduct that research. The NRA (who could not, under any circumstances, be described as neutral on the subject) probably aren't the best people to conduct the research, either. Note: Not being FOR guns doesn't mean you're against them. And not being AGAINST them doesn't mean you're for them. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #27 February 3, 2013 QuoteIf someone goes into research looking to prove that guns cause violence, then they're the wrong person to conduct that research. From the quotes provided, that might be the case for Rosenberg and/or O'Carroll. Of course, those quotes might be taken out of context. If someone goes into research looking to prove that guns are good and solve problems, they're also not the person to conduct that research. The NRA (who could not, under any circumstances, be described as neutral on the subject) probably aren't the best people to conduct the research, either. Note: Not being FOR guns doesn't mean you're against them. And not being AGAINST them doesn't mean you're for them. Wendy P. That was the problem. The "researchers" at the CDC had already demonstrated a bias against guns. One of them was on the board of directors at the Brady group. You have to rememeber the political climate in 93-94. The anti gun crowd was on a roll. They had passed the Brady bill and the AWB. They thought they had the NRA on the ropes. They publically stated their 3 pronged attack: Legislative, litigative, and medical. They had "Brady 2" all set to go. They had announced their plans to sue the gun manufacturers into bankruptcy and out of business. And they clearly stated that they had doctors who would "find" that guns were a health risk. They announced the outcome of the research before the research actually took place. Most gun owners were caught by surprise when the AWB passed. NRA membership soared, the Rs took both houses of congress, and the anti gunner's plans were derailed. All the proposed gun control legislation was scrapped, the so-called research was blocked and, although it took several years and the gun makers had to pay a shitload of money fighting the frivilous lawsuits (none of which made it very far), laws preventing those kinds of lawsuits passed."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,583 #28 February 3, 2013 So suppressing the research entirely is the answer? I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. It's no more tainted than research coming from the NRA. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #29 February 3, 2013 QuoteLet me show you then since you are trying to further side step the question. QuoteTop CDC official in 1989 had announced, “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” [P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.] Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted and disavowed any pre-existing agenda. But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly — and banned.” [William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994, quoted by Kates, et. al. in Tennessee Law Review article mentioned below]. The preponderance of evidence points to a political agenda at the CDC. YES the man did say that. So why would you have the CDC do any "research" if BEFORE a study started they already proved they were biased, and planned on steering the results? You can have theories about what might happen ahead of the research, but not outright say you are going to bend the public's views ahead of time. I say good on them for stopping that research, its about like global warming. How much money was pumped into "research" where the organizations clearly were biased, and would give you whatever result you were paying for. I would love to see a neutral fact only based research. Simply find out the facts, and state them, don't handpick cases to make one side better than the other that's wrong. Cite for those "quotes"? Like an ORIGINAL source and not a biased one? Even the NRA's self professed "point man in Congress" now admits that gagging the CDC was a mistake.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #30 February 3, 2013 QuoteSo suppressing the research entirely is the answer? I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. It's no more tainted than research coming from the NRA. Wendy P. I am not forced by the threat of imprisonment or death to fund the NRA. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 February 3, 2013 JAMA is biased and unoriginal? What's next? Are you going to suggest that American Journal of Physics and Applied Physics are not good sources for reliable representations of how certain a physicists think about certain issues?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #32 February 3, 2013 QuoteQuoteSo suppressing the research entirely is the answer? I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. It's no more tainted than research coming from the NRA. Wendy P. I am not forced by the threat of imprisonment or death to fund the NRA. I've heard many people say that's exactly why they help fund the NRA. The NRA doesn't want gun control proponents to go away, because then 80% of the NRA's actual raison d'etre goes away. The industry manufacturing and selling guns & accessories for civilian consumption doesn't want gun control advocacy to go away; they put their kids through college on it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #33 February 3, 2013 QuoteSo suppressing the research entirely is the answer? I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. It's no more tainted than research coming from the NRA. Wendy P. No, supressing research entirely isn't the answer. I didn't mean to give that impression. The funny part is that a lot of the unbiased research has shown that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens have a positive impact. The Kleck study is a good example. He started the study without an agenda. He was actually expecting to see defensive gun use far lower than he found. It has flaws, but it has been supported to some degree by other studies. That data is instantly attacked by the anti gun crowd."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #34 February 3, 2013 QuoteQuoteSo suppressing the research entirely is the answer? I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree. It's no more tainted than research coming from the NRA. Wendy P. No, supressing research entirely isn't the answer. I didn't mean to give that impression. The funny part is that a lot of the unbiased research has shown that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens have a positive impact. The Kleck study is a good example. He started the study without an agenda. He was actually expecting to see defensive gun use far lower than he found. It has flaws, but it has been supported to some degree by other studies. That data is instantly attacked by the anti gun crowd. That's because the study is demonstrably bogus. Using Kleck's methodology you can show that some 15% of Americans have been inside UFOs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #35 February 3, 2013 Seems we have yet another multiple shooting this week, AT A GUN RANGE IN TEXAS, where these things never happen (so we are told repeatedly). www.star-telegram.com/2013/02/02/4596024/militarys-deadliest-sniper-killed.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #36 February 13, 2013 baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/02/13/college-park-shooting-victim-to-return-to-school/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #37 February 14, 2013 In fairness, asshole college rommates will drive you nuts enough to kill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
