Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Adding to the war on science: gun research, pregnancy-rape connection....

Keith Kloor is tired of people talking about the war on science. I'd think that he would have a point if other people stopped committing a war on science. It took the news events from the last year to let me know about several fronts in the war on science that I hadn't known:  limits on health research funding that might show gun control as reducing violence (something Obama is trying to get around but is still in the law) and the claim that women couldn't or rarely became pregnant from rape.

Another recent attack, although more of a war on math, is the claim that dividing up the electoral vote from states with a slight Democratic lean by congressional district instead of awarding all the votes to the victor will result in more attention to rural conservative districts. The reality is that attention only goes to electoral votes that are truly in play - you ignore the areas that are certain wins or certain losses. Conservative districts in battleground states have a at least a shot at attention - their votes now make a difference, but not when their effect could be taken for granted.  As has been noted, this issue is just an attempt to skew the national election at the expense of the local interest.

To be fair, the question remains of when a stupid claim by some people on one side, like the pregnancy-rape thing, can be considered a joint responsibility for that side of the spectrum.  I think when it rises to the level of being made repeatedly by the political elite, Congressmen and senatorial candidates, then I'd say they at least have a problem.

Shutting down funding as in gun research takes the attacks on science to another level, from denial to an active refusal to let other people understand the issue (UPDATE:  corrected from "shutting down funding entirely", per a comment request below). Climate denialists must be jealous, although I do recall Republican attempts to shut down earth-monitoring satellites.

Threats to science providers such as bogus referrals for criminal prosecution by powerful senators are the near-worst, though.

Stop making war on science, and I'll stop talking about it.  Calling them out on it is the small good thing that can be done in response.  I think it shows in the general intellectual dissatisfaction with the Republican Party elite, and someday the Republicans will have to come around.


UPDATE:  one missing aspect of the gun research discussion is the political signalling that goes beyond the letter of the prohibition on certain results from research.  The original prohibition is/was a signal of political strength by gun nuts and a warning to government-funded researchers to stay away.  If you fund studying of drunk driving and effect on public health safety, then you get a pat on the head no matter how good or bad the work is.  Fund a study on whether more guns result in more accidental shootings/suicides/illegal guns, and expect to see your work analyzed with great bias, and expect the agency to face funding cuts in the next cycle.  Obama's action is a bit of contrary signalling.

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

"I think it shows in the general intellectual dissatisfaction with the Republican Party elite, and someday the Republicans will have to come around."

And the award for the most condescending ignorant statement of the year goes to Brian The Waterboy.


Be sure to claim all ten of your "meetings" every month this year to maximize your intake from the taxpayers trough.


I really enjoy the thought process that no research can be conducted unless it is funded by the taxpayer. And reducing by $2.6million (but wait it was restored in committee) from a multi-billion dollar budget is going to impede research. Who in the CDC would be afrraid of the Obama justice department coming after them for "breaking" a cardinal rule of researching gun violence, are you really that naive?

Makes sense though coming from someone who live off of the taxpayer.

EliRabett said...

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that there were some other Attorney Generals in the US before Eric Holder.

However, rejectionist have issues and really hate it when their fee fees are ignored. Eli knows;) BTW, CDC did stop their research into how guns were affecting the health of the shot, didn't they?

Steve Bloom said...

Good points, although I could have done without the reference to the useless Kloor.

Anonymous said...

"CDC did stop their research into how guns were affecting the health of the shot, didn't they?"

Yep with Holder as the AG.


Sounds like a bunch of nonesense to me. If the CDC wants to allocate a few million of their multi-billion dollar budget and research gun violence I am pretty sure that would not be a problem with anyone.

Now on the other hand if they started to advocate particular political policy well then...


If I were to use Brian Logic I would make the claim that all Democrat Senators sleep with underage hookers in foreign countries. I mean one of them did, the investigation was delayed till after the election, mainstream media knew of it last year as well and not a single report. And since other Democrats have not denounced the behavior...

You see Brian is a bigot when it comes to political party. All Republicans are evil stupid morons who are deniers and want guns around to kill kids.

I question his ability to rationally speak on any topic. I can only imagine his hatred and spittle when he has to mention a Republican.

Brian do all your meetings last 8 or more hours or do some last as little as 30 minutes and you still collect $286.00?

Russell Seitz said...

Chill, Eli.

If I were a G. rex,I'd be very afraid, but the Founders devised the Second Amendment with an open season on tyrants, not rabbits, in mind, and never forbade that Mother Of All Assault Muskets, the Puckle Gun.

EliRabett said...

Well, the ban on gun research was put on in 1996, but thank you for providing convincing evidence of Brian's point that Republicans are, shall we say, the folks who cover the inside of your LCD monitor with spit. Hard to wipe that off it is

You also have a somewhat limited understanding about how money is appropriated, authorized and spent in the federal budget. Hint: AGs have little to do with it and nothing to do with the CDC.

EliRabett said...

Russell, what do you think the DK crew need the bunny shredders for?

Anonymous said...

"Well, the ban on gun research was put on in 1996,..."

Wrong! did you lie or are you mistaken?

"To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”4

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470#ref-jvp120140-9


That is not banning research, that is saying a government department cannot openly advocate a political position. You teach?





"Hint: AGs have little to do with it and nothing to do with the CDC."

You might want to contact the authors of various links by the Waterboy. They say people at the CDC fear doing anything gun related as they interpret that as breaking the law. Holder (ironic fame in selling guns to Mexican drug lords that murder US Border Patrol Agents) has been the AG since 2009. What have they been fearing the past four years. Obama has pretty much ignored Congress in all other matters is this really where he draws the line? lol Rubbish Run



Hey Brian do you support lifetime pension and health benefits for part time workers scuh as yourself?


Anonymous said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann

Poor methods, poor control data, not willing to release raw data (no wonder why Brian and Eli would like Kellerman's study!) And if we actualy read the study we find.

"Using illicit drugs lead to a 5.7 times risk of being murdered, being a renter 4.4 times, having any household member hit or hurt in a fight 4.4 times, living alone 3.7 times, guns in the household 2.7 times, and a household member being arrested, 2.5 times."

http://www.tbuckner.com/KELLERMANN.htm


We must outlaw Renting of homes that will save more lives than outlawing guns!

No one can live alone anymore it is too dangerous!


Rubbish Run

What say you Waterboy? You seemed to have vanished, got a big "meeting" tomorrow?

Pinko Punko said...

Gun nuts make me want to be in a room with anti-Vaxxers. Both are vectors for stupid and possibly dangerous to the public.

Brian said...

Hi Brave Anon: I invite you to come over to my Water District blog if you'd like to comment on my incompetence and corruption on those issues, but the topic of this post here is whether there's an ongoing war on science. Bait me all you want elsewhere, thank you.

I think spluttering distractions indicate that there is someone who'd rather not face reality.

observer said...

@Anonymous

Perhaps you should read the text you quote and THINK about it for a moment:

"none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

Well, imagine that they would conduct a study, to find out e.g. if having a gun in your house puts a greater risk on you and your family to be killed by a gun. That would be a legitimate question which could be answered by science.

But if that study would find such a greater risk, it MAY BE USED TO ADVOCATE GUN REGULATION later by politicians.

But that has nothing to do with your conclusion, that the CDC or whoever would "openly advocate a political position". Even if the authors would in no way advocate for gun control in the study, the RESULTS of the study may still be used to advocate gun control.

So the above text is essentially saying:
Don't make studies that may have as a result, that guns have negative impacts on certain things.

That IS of course banning research, because you are not allowed to spend money on investigating anything with guns because you *might* find something negative.

Science's job is to tell us, what the world is like and how it works. What we do with that knowledge and what political conclusions we draw from that is a completely different thing.

Example: Nuclear Waste Disposal.
Science can tell us how long we have to guard the waste, in what ways we can dispose it and what are the risks associated with them.

But two different countries can make - based on the same scientific facts - different decisions about e.g. using nuclear power. The one country may say, the risk is worth it, the other may decide the risks of the long-term waste problem are to great. That is a political judgement. But first you have to get your scientific facts straight, before you can even make a reasonable decision.

But the above text is effectively banning research and so we can't get our facts straight in the first place! I can't understand how someone can not see that...

J Bowers said...

"There's none so blind as those who will not see."

It's even explained in Anon's link if you read past his quote.

Anonymous said...

If this was an experiment to see if mentioned of guns would bring out some very determined nastiness, it worked.

Pete Dunkelberg

Anonymous said...

Perhaps you should read the text you quote and THINK about it for a moment:

"none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."



Perhaps you should understand the meaning of the first four words. Not as smart as you thought. Also, is government fubnded research the only way research is funded?


Brian,

When did I say you are corrupt and incompetent at your Water District job? I simply asked you a few questions about it, a little sensitive I see, hmmm... I also have commented plenty at your naive and ignorant article accusing large groups of people all kinds of nasty things just because of their political party affiliation.

No comments on the bad study by Kellerman?


Brian, You are a joke. You should just stick with the Water District job.


Love Rubbish Run. I am now a gun nut, lol.

EliRabett said...

Pinko Punko raises an interesting point. Is it more dangerous for a bunny to be in a room with a gun nut or an anti-vaxxer. Well, based on current evidence Rabetts would actually have to laugh at the gun nuts blather to rile the fool up and there is a reasonable chance he would shoot himself, but the anti-vaxxer could give Eli myxomatosis or viral haemorrhagic disease just by being there.

Anonymous said...

This is as good a thread as any to re-tell this ironic little story.

An old friend of mine who worked at Boeing many years ago tole me about a co-worker of his who was a paranoid gun-nut. The gun-nut liked to brag not only about all the weaponry in his house, but also about the big, mean rottweilers he had as backup protection.

Well, when said gun-nut was away from his house overnight, some people broke into his house, got to his gun case, got the guns, shot the rottweillers***, and then proceeded to clean the place out.

Quite possibly, the folks who committed the crime had previously overheard the paranoid gun-nut bragging about his guns and killer dogs.

And this brings up the possibility that gun nuts can pose threats similar to those of antivaxxers. All that weaponry that the gun nut failed to secure properly was now in the hands of criminals.

***An often effective technique for neutralizing aggressive dogs is to bring along some nice juicy steaks. Just give the steaks to the dogs, head to over the homeowner's gun case and help yourself to the guns.

--caerbannog the anonybunny

Anonymous said...

s/tole/told/

Anonymous said...

"The Kloor on Science"
-- by Horatio Algeranon

Kloor on science
Is very predictable
Enviro defiance
Cherry picked bull

Hank Roberts said...

You've got a stalker who needs help from a librarian, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html
January 25, 2011

"... Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?...."

You can look this stuff up.

Oh, wait, you can't.

Hank Roberts said...

PS, when the NYT ran that two years ago:

"The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way."

That was then.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/north-carolina-bans-latest-science-rising-sea-level/story?id=16913782

Anonymous said...

lol Oh scientists said so in the NYT so their opinion on the legal meaning of words in the CDC legislation must be valid!

Almost spit my root beer out reading the above.

It is real simple. The CDC can try to allocate in their budget and spend money on gun related deaths. They cannot advocate a political position from that study.

Nice negative GSP growth Obama has brought us.

Yeah that Kellerman study that all these articles point to was just good science.

You cannot make this stuff up.


If you support the Kellerman study then you should be outlawing renting as that puts you in a higher risk group for violent death than owning a firearm.

Hank hahahahahahaha.

Anonymous said...

Correction: GSP = GDP


Also what about all the science bunnies, why have they not evaluated this Kellerman study?

Anonymous said...

One more question, for Brian.

If the CDC has been barred from doing any gun research since 1996, because they are afraid to even ask for the money in their budget, how is this all Republicans fault?

I mean you did not write in your article that Republican and Democrat gun nuts need to come around? Did you?


Anonymous said...

Hmm like I said Obama just ignores Congress anyway.

One of President Obama’s less-noticed actions on guns yesterday could actually prove to be one of the most significant in the long run. Among other things, the president signed an executive order directing the Centers on Disease Control to start studying “the causes of gun violence” once again

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/17/gun-research-is-allowed-again-so-what-will-we-find-out/


I actually support this move if that is what it takes for CDC workers to actually do their jobs and stop all this whining about the NRA and sounding stupid and weak.

J Bowers said...

The gun nuts/gun lobby (take the latter as the gun sales PR arm) target both Republicans and Democrats. Cold dead hands and all that jazz. A bit like Republican legislators being too afraid to stand up to Grover Norquist.

Brian said...

Added this above, so I'll just post it here as well:

UPDATE: one missing aspect of the gun research discussion is the political signalling that goes beyond the letter of the prohibition on certain results from research. The original prohibition is/was a signal of political strength by gun nuts and a warning to government-funded researchers to stay away. If you fund studying of drunk driving and effect on public health safety, then you get a pat on the head no matter how good or bad the work is. Fund a study on whether more guns result in more accidental shootings/suicides/illegal guns, and expect to see your work analyzed with great bias, and expect the agency to face funding cuts in the next cycle. Obama's action is a bit of contrary signalling.

Hank Roberts said...

> whining about the NRA and
> sounding stupid and weak

My guess is those whining about the NRA aren't paying attention:

http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm

Kind of a Dunning-Krueger of biochemistry.

EliRabett said...

Horatio, that was one of your best:)

EliRabett said...

There is a lesson to be learned from Kellermann that gun nuts, even academic ones, lie.

Anonymous said...

So Eli thinks the Kellerman study is an example of good science. Duly Noted.

Brian fails to respond about the Kellerman study so I'll group him with Eli.


All other bunnies want to hold Kellerman up as good science?

Anonymous said...

Tim Lambert. Ha now that's funny. You should not bring an Australian teacher of computers for beginners to a gun fight.


Try this.

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html


Glad I was not holding my breath for all the "scientists" and those who hold scientists in such high esteem to give an honest review/evaluation of the "science" in Kellerman's bogus study on gun deaths.


Rubbish Run

EliRabett said...

Well, if you define good science as science that agrees with your average off the street gun nut, then no, but the gun nuts have been doing Kellermann what the climate denialists have been doing to MBH 98.

Anonymous said...

Eli it is time for you to remove the word "not" from your mini bio.

If you review Kellerman's study as good science then you are lost to the world of reality.

Anonymous said...

"Shutting down funding entirely as in gun research takes the attacks on science to another level..."


This is not factual statement, please correct.

Hank Roberts said...

Kellerman

I don't do blog cites unless I've read the paper. Was that AL Kellerman? F Kellerman? S Kellerman?

I'm guessing https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=160187

Whichever Kellerman your bloggers are hot up about, they need to read the paper, look at the citing papers, follow the idea forward, and see what's been made of it.

I have it on excellent authority that one Charles Darwin was wrong in a great many ways about evolution. Also, one Millikan was not following procedures recognized today as good science when he measured the charge of the electron. He was wrong.

It matters not a bit. Science doesn't grow by building on a great founder whose work can be overthrown, taking the whole scientific field down.

The early researchers are often wrong. But not wrong like Anonymous. Wrong like the early days of knowledge.

Anonymous said...

Right, wrong, does not matter as long as we can still use it as a reference for our political cause, even without understanding it.


You are a genius Hank, pure genius.

J Bowers said...

"Right, wrong, does not matter as long as we can still use it as a reference for our political cause, even without understanding it."

Ah, thanks for explaining why you quote mined your own link, earlier. Kudos.

Anonymous said...

it's numpties like the Anonymous on this thread (what threshold level of low intelligence does it require to consistently not understand the utility of a unique identifier?) who are the best argument for gun control.

People such as these confuse knowledge and understanding with emotional instincts - the reactions of disgust, xenophobia, Dunning-Kruger effect, paranoia and other mental states that were bred into humans hundreds of thousands of years ago as adaptations for an environment very different to the one we've build for ourselves over the last few millenia.

Without the facility for objective rationalisation they are a danger to themselves and to the more intellectually-developed humans in our society - as evidence I tender the facts of mass-murdering, war atrocities, sexual/religious/political/persecution, resource over-extraction, environmental destruction, and the viscerally-ingrained but rationally untenable denial of human-caused climate change.


Bernard J.

Hank Roberts said...

One of thess?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=kellerman+firearm+gun

Hank Roberts said...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1558455
Firearm Injuries as a Public Health Issue
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;():1-2. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.22

"In 2011, firearm injuries accounted for 32,163 deaths in the United States, nearly as many as the 34,677 fatalities from motor vehicle traffic accidents....
... , in December 2012, the CDC's website offered little information to people trying to understand and prevent such violent events. The CDC's “A-Z Index” has no listing for either “guns” or “firearms,” and the 24 topics on the “Injury, Violence & Safety” web page include explosion and blast injuries and fireworks, but not firearms. Indeed, federal health officials rarely speak about any aspect of firearms injury, violence, and safety."

Hank Roberts said...

Well, perhaps 'Gun-Anonymous' found Scholar and is reading what's actually in the research and comparing that to what some blog somewhere said was there. One can hope.

Yes, in this world, a military force can drop in, shoot people, and cover it up afterward. People who've heard about that or experienced it may well want to be armed for good reason.

But we also know that a well regulated militia doesn't do that, any more than a well regulated army. It's the actual militias and actual armies that we have reason to worry about.

Do the gun-anonymous favor regulation? I don't hear much about that side, oddly enough.

Anonymous said...

And people like Bernard J allow mass murderes in power such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao as they watch and do nothing while people's rights are removed and a strong central government grows in power.


Wow that is fun Bernard, not very productive but fun.



Still no assessments of Kellerman from all the bunnies . As intelligent as they claim to be I was expecting more.


Hank Roberts said...

Anon, dear, we can ignore your Godwin's Law excursion -- once -- and continue to hope you will find the damn paper in Scholar.

Look at the citing papers.
Is there a retraction?
Is there a supplement?
Is there a correction?

Pointing to bloggers who don't like science isn't convincing.
Ranting isn't convincing.

If you can't find the paper, ask a librarian.

Librarians are not the enemy you think you're fighting.

The other people here aren't your enemy either.

Look _at_ the science people are talking about.

Summary:

Someone posting as "Anonymous" -- guessing from the tone mostly one person, or someone doing a good imitation of that early one -- has been blogging about what you read that some guy on a blog wrote that some other guy on some other blog wrote about it.

Science works.

Is there a flaw in a paper? Someone gets the credit for publishing the correction. That person could be you, if it's not out there already. Look for it.

Because As We All Know, The Green Party Runs the World.









Anonymous said...

"Anon, dear, we can ignore your Godwin's Law excursion -- once -- and continue to hope you will find the damn paper in Scholar."


What no wise words for Bernard who said "Without the facility for objective rationalisation they are a danger to themselves and to the more intellectually-developed humans in our society - as evidence I tender the facts of mass-murdering, war atrocities, ..."


Go pound sand.


Anonymous said...

Well it lloks like Brian is wrong, again.

There is continuing research into gun violence conducted by the Federal Government.

What has been the theme here amongst the rodents, oh do some simple research.

You mean like this?


http://info.publicintelligence.net/NJROIC-MassShootings.pdf


Does not look like a ban on scary looking "assault" rifles is going to fix the problem of mass shootings.


Someone in between there bs asked me what I supported for gun regulations.

I support a Nationalized instant background checks on gun purchases. I would include a system where a gun purchase license could be issued valid for one year. You would be issued this license after a background check and would renew on an annual basis. Allocate the license fun to education programs about the use and storage of firearms.

Anonymous said...

lloks = looks there = their

Forgot to review

Hank Roberts said...

Anon, the Constitution doesn't say _own_ arms -- it says keep and bear arms.

See the difference?

Arms kept and borne by people who can assemble to form a properly regulated militia.

Now -- how do you, the militia, properly regulate those arms?

Sell those arms, so they're available to anyone who wants one?




Hank Roberts said...

Ah, Anon's program popped in.

So a one year license to keep and bear -- renewable with what conditions? And if not renewed, what then?

J Bowers said...

"There is continuing research into gun violence conducted by the Federal Government."

Are the New Jersey State Police a federal agency?

New Jersey Regional Operations Intelligence Center.

ROIC's pronounced "rock", by the way.

Hank Roberts said...

http://leiu.org/accomplishments/2012/roic
LEIU's Central Coordinating Agency - 4949 Broadway Sacramento, Ca 95820 leiu@doj.ca.gov

Federalism!

Hank Roberts said...

P.S. -- that NJ thing is a summary and review of newspaper stories, except for the first reference it cites:
DHS, Active Shooter: How to Respond, October 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf

Who is this "DHS" of which you speak?

Rattus Norvegicus said...

BTW Anony, there is a link to a Kellerman paper in the Deltoid post linked by Eli. I couldn't see anything wildly wrong with it, perhaps you can elaborate?

Anonymous said...

So The Department of Homeleand Security working with the State of New Jersey = no Federal effort or $$ into the research of gun violence.


Hank,

I see you do not understand what the Bill of Rights was for. It was not for government either state or federal, it was a collection of rights for the people.

As for this question:

"So a one year license to keep and bear -- renewable with what conditions? And if not renewed, what then?"

Condition of renewal a nominal fee and a background check. If they fail to renewe then they revert back to every gun purchase requires its own background check.


Rattus,

I agree with this evaluation.

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html


The first thing I noticed with the Kellerman study was it only included homicide of the resident of the home. Also according to this study Renting a home is much more dangerous in those neighborhoods than having a gun.

"These percentages indicate Kellermann's study essentially shows that households with guns in the hands of residents having criminal records, illicit drug use, or prior histories of violence, are at a higher risk of experiencing domestic homicides."


Thank you for taking the time to read the Kellerman study.




Anonymous said...

Hank,

I prefer Hamilton over you.


“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

dhogaza said...

"I prefer Hamilton over you."

He certainly allowed Burr to exercise his 2nd amendment rights...

J Bowers said...

"So The Department of Homeleand Security working with the State of New Jersey = no Federal effort or $$ into the research of gun violence."

Sorry, can you elaborate on how an instruction manual on what to do if a shooter kicks off in your building, and when law enforcement arrives, is research on gun violence? I couldn't find the data and academic citations, only references to active shooter response and workplace safety guidelines.

Brian said...

Someone upthread said I shouldn't have written "shutting down funding entirely". I miswrote what I intended to write, so I've deleted the word entirely, per the comment request.

Anonymous said...

Bowers,

Yes because understanding the weapons used, the social background, ethnicity, gender, location, relationship to the victims and so on is just unimportant information when trying to research mass shootings.

J Bowers said...

Anon, I fail to see how "the weapons used, the social background, ethnicity, gender, location, relationship to the victims" are relevant to the active shooter manual. Did you even bother to read it?

Anonymous said...

I am referring to this.

http://info.publicintelligence.net/NJROIC-MassShootings.pdf


Did you bother to read it?

This small document has much more usefull data than the Kellerman study. I am glad I own a home rather than rent one else I or a family member would be 4.4 more times likely to be the victim of a homicide.

When are you going to band semi-automatic handguns? Those were used in 28 of the 29 mass shootings, according to this document.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Anony, John Jay was the author of Federalist #2. BTW, this quote does not appear in Federalist #2 it is in #29. Do you even read the crap you post?

Hank Roberts said...

Anon, you're dissing a study you haven't been able to find.

And you're promoting as "research" that article based on one government study (footnote 1) and other than that, based on newspaper articles (the rest of the footnotes).

A summary of newspaper articles.

If you're in grade school, summarizing is called "research" -- but it's not.

Hard argument in a science discussion requires having read the science. Calling names., comparisons to historical figures-- boring, botlike. Turing would be disappointed.

http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2013/1/29/how-to-share-a-great-discovery.html

Anonymous said...

Oh Rattus I am so sorry I left the 9 off the 29. Please forgive me me lord I shan't do it again.


Hank,

I have not been able to find Kellerman? Really?

I am not promoting anything and I am sorry that some lackey threw together some facts that are far more valuable and pertinent to gun violence than a flawed study by a scientist. OK a little too much wine for you tonight it is tiring responding to idiocy and incoherence.

Oh while you were busy drinking wine, my efforts have improved Brian's article. He has corrected an error. An error that would have remained unnoticed by you and the other Rubbish Run Rodents. See when Brian or John or Eli writes an article or posts a comment you are so busy rushing to agree with them you fail to even perform the most basic assessment of the validity of the facts or conclusions. How can you even pretend to move on to a scientific dicsussion when on such weak footing? You cannot even challenge basic errors in article.



J Bowers said...

Anon, it's a state report, not a federal report, unless you believe that using the DHS definition of an active shooter from the what-to-do guide constitutes using federal "health research funding that might show gun control as reducing violence". As Hank pointed out, the rest of the references in NJ ROIC doc are newspaper reports, so the obvious conclusion would be that the intelligence unit analysed those reports (and others) to build a profile of a typical active shooter.

Anonymous said...

"And people like Bernard J allow mass murderes in power such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao as they watch and do nothing while people's rights are removed and a strong central government grows in power."

Really?

And by what trainwreck of thought did you arrive at that conclusion? Please be detailed and specific.

Once you've done so, I'll counter with evidence that puts the fact of your egregious and libellous error into the light of day.

Anonymous prat.


Bernard J.

Hank Roberts said...

Killfiled. Not convinced there's a human in the loop on that one.

Anonymous said...

Bernard it was a equal response to yours where you implied people like me were the mass murderes of the world.

Bernard said

"it's numpties like the Anonymous on this thread (what threshold level of low intelligence does it require to consistently not understand the utility of a unique identifier?) who are the best argument for gun control.

People such as these confuse knowledge and understanding with emotional instincts - the reactions of disgust, xenophobia, Dunning-Kruger effect, paranoia and other mental states that were bred into humans hundreds of thousands of years ago as adaptations for an environment very different to the one we've build for ourselves over the last few millenia.

Without the facility for objective rationalisation they are a danger to themselves and to the more intellectually-developed humans in our society - as evidence I tender the facts of mass-murdering, war atrocities, sexual/religious/political/persecution, resource over-extraction, environmental destruction, and the viscerally-ingrained but rationally untenable denial of human-caused climate change."


I also noticed you left out my ending sentence of that post that puts my paragraph in context.

Anon said:

"Wow that is fun Bernard, not very productive but fun."


If you do not want to get punched in the face don't poke someone in the chest.


Russell Seitz said...

"In 2011, firearm injuries accounted for 32,163 deaths in the United States, nearly as many as the 34,677 fatalities from motor vehicle traffic accidents.."

had the constitution approbated well-ordered demolition derbys instead of militias, debate could be focused on damning car nuts who believe in the right to keep, bear fire and fire off fully automatic internal combustion engines .

Thank god they don't make high-capacity potato magazines for exhaust pipes

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Anony --

Not sure that Federalist 29 means what the quote implies...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous bozo.

I see your error. You are (unsurprisingly confusing things.

On the one hand is the disporportionate propensity of emotionally and intellectually under-developed people to respond with knee-jerk over-reaction to people and circumstances they do not like - a bit like yourself...

On the other hand is the cold, calculated psychopathy of mass-murders such as those whom you named.

Different kettles of fish, and likely those psychopaths are much more 'intelligent' (IQ, not EQ) than your average fundamentalist conservative. I'm quite ammenable to regarding you as belonging to the fundamentalist category, but I doubt that you have the charisma, the capacity for strategy, and the detatched indifference that characterises the inhumanity of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Fundamentalist or psychopath, both are potentially great dangers to society. The ætiologies are quite different though, and I wouldn't conflate the two. That you did is your issue, not mine.


Bernard J.

Anonymous said...

Bernard,

And it is people like you that are susceptible to social influence of those you place in power above you, you conform to others thoughts and ideas, turn off your independent thought and conform to the group think. People like you make the Hitlers, Maos, and Stalins possible.

Chew on that

J Bowers said...

There was I, thinking it had something to do with the actions of the League of Nations, the Manchu monarchy and the Romanoffs. Bad Bernard J, you've been a very naughty boy.

Funnily enough, though, them early anti-semitic proto-Nazis were also busy denying relativity in much the same way as the modern AGW denier does (Einstein being Jewish), sans internet and telly. I'm sure there's an Anon-style logical progression there to do with the undefinable environmentalist and lib'rul menace, but it eludes me for now.

Anonymous said...

J Bowers,

Nope, wrong again. Try some other pre-fab boxes that you like to use.

Predictable and boring