Crawdad1
Member
Falsifying evidence and steering the evidence are two distinct and separate issues.
He steered the evidence.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692421
http://ocshooters.com/Reports/Arming_America/arming_america.htm
how is "gunviolence" like an epidemic?
- Thread starter jamesjames
- Start date
- Status
Falsifying evidence and steering the evidence are two distinct and separate issues.
He steered the evidence.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=692421
http://ocshooters.com/Reports/Arming_America/arming_america.htm
Deanimator
Member
Michael Bellesiles did BOTH!
Michael Bellesiles - "Why, I found x here at y!"
Officials at y - "You've never been here, and even if you had been, we've never had x and still don't."
Michael Bellesiles - "Hommina, hommina, hommina, the dog (and an office flood) ate my 'research'!"
He's to "gun violence research" what Ernst Zundel is to Holocaust studies.
And he was one of the MORE "credible" anti-gun propagandists...
Crawdad1
Member
For example, both of these statements are true. (These numbers are not accurate but the premise is correct)
Statement 1) More teenage boys commit suicide than teenage girls by 2 to 1. Gives you the impression that teenage boys are more troubled than teenage girls doesn't it?
However,
Statement 2) Teenage girls 'attempted' suicide more than teenage boys by 10 t0 1. Now, what is your Impression of who is more troubled?
No one falsified anything.
Statement 1) More teenage boys commit suicide than teenage girls by 2 to 1. Gives you the impression that teenage boys are more troubled than teenage girls doesn't it?
However,
Statement 2) Teenage girls 'attempted' suicide more than teenage boys by 10 t0 1. Now, what is your Impression of who is more troubled?
No one falsified anything.
Last edited:
Crawdad1
Member
The published one in 2003: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
"During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."
SteveChuck
Member
It is no different than the other brain quacks trying to equate "addiction" as a disease. Ridiculous. I cannot contract alcoholism by walking into a bar and drinking out of someone else's glass, or breathing in the "virus" of heroin addiction. These are a bunch of anti gun, left wing haters, cowards, who try every which way they can to "intellectualize" and frame their hatred towards those of us who have a desire to possess the means to resist a tyrannical government or society using pseudo scientific hypothesis they dream up. Whenever you come across these types, you should always start "quack quack quacking" at them - especially at parties or public places. They hate it, they have no real response and it makes them so irritated it's laughable. Of course, you'll get the old "grow up, how immature" etc etc - ad nauseum but, you've made your point, gotten under their skin and it is entirely enjoyable. Just remember - you will NEVER change their minds with logical talking point,statistics or impassioned reasoning. Why? Because liberals, Socialists, Big Government types and pointy headed intellectuals work off of EMOTION...that's all they have. The more you can irritate them, cause them to lose their self control, the more fun and effective you are. Have a great Thanksgiving!
SteveChuck
Member
Oh yeah, the CDC cooks numbers - they do it all the time to gain more funding, or to satisfy a political angle that would put them in the forefront of policy making. They are no different than any other government agency. It's all about creating a society totally dependent on the word of "Government" and the faceless, unnamed appointees are the worst as THEY manipulate the elected to insure one hand washes the others (funding and re-election). As far as the numbers game, hey, play their game - start making up your own statistics with whoever you are debating, then defy them to PROVE, right there, on the spot, that those numbers are false. It's so much fun to watch THEIR BP go skyrocketing. (Use the old D.A.M. method - Deny everything they say, Admit to nothing they say is correct, and Make up false statistics and accusations!) Have a great Thanksgiving!!!.
Is there really such a thing as gun violence? Is it not just one human being perpetrating violence on another human being.
The tools to do this violence are irreverent . As I see this it is a social, people problem and not the device used to carry out the
violence. IMHO
The tools to do this violence are irreverent . As I see this it is a social, people problem and not the device used to carry out the
violence. IMHO
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
SteveChuck said:
While we're getting too far afield for THR, this deserves re-thinking or at least reading more deeply on. I know your impression of the matter makes simple sense, understanding "disease" to mean "infectious disease." But heart disease is the number one killer of Americans, by far. And you can't catch that from drinking out of someone else's glass in a bar, either.
Nor are Down syndrome, Tay-Sach's, sickle-cell disease, or a lot of other genetic diseases.
The truth is that we're only starting to understand how genes make disease happen, and there's a high likelihood that our kids will live to understand a great many disorders/diseases by the genetic factors which permit and contribute to them. There is a strong correlation between addiction and genes, indicating that we can understand it as a disease (genetic disorder) and can only hope to cure it that way.
So before you make too awful big a quacking noise, make darned sure you understand the science at least as well as the researcher you're mocking.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
Gun violence does not match the germ theory of disease.
Gun violence matches the immune system failure theory of disease.
People who commit gun violence have more in common with the people who commit non-gun violence than they have with people who own guns.
The real problem is violent people, not guns or gun owners.
Under CDC Additional Requirement 12, you cannot use research funds appropriated from Congress to lobby Congress on any legislation.
Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths." in Janice Somerville, "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.
Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control: "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."
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, 1994: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes.... Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly, and banned."
That meant collecting data with the view of proving an apriori assumption and using it to lobby Congress to act on the assumption. That is not the definition of scientific method.
That lead to CDC Additional Requirement 13 aka AR13: you cannot use research funds appropriated from Congress to lobby Congress on any legislation including gun control.
Gun violence matches the immune system failure theory of disease.
People who commit gun violence have more in common with the people who commit non-gun violence than they have with people who own guns.
The real problem is violent people, not guns or gun owners.
Under CDC Additional Requirement 12, you cannot use research funds appropriated from Congress to lobby Congress on any legislation.
Katherine Christoffel, M.D.: "Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths." in Janice Somerville, "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.
Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control: "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."
Dr. Mark Rosenberg, CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, 1994: "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes.... Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly, and banned."
That meant collecting data with the view of proving an apriori assumption and using it to lobby Congress to act on the assumption. That is not the definition of scientific method.
That lead to CDC Additional Requirement 13 aka AR13: you cannot use research funds appropriated from Congress to lobby Congress on any legislation including gun control.
SteveChuck
Member
Oh I understand it alright - and them. How do you explain the thousands, if not tens of thousands - maybe even Hundreds of Thousands of people who never, ever become "addicted" to alcohol, tobacco, opiates, or any other narcotic - legal or illegal, even when one or both parents, grandparents etc..were considered "addicts"??? Heart disease is not, in many cases, hereditary. There is such a thing as called cause and effect - you fail to exercise, eat fatty, high carb food, are under a lot of stress and fail to address these conditions as you become overweight with High Blood pressure, you will suffer from a myriad of physical ailments - Some could be Heart Disease, Diabetes, Stroke, etc..by the way - what comes first? Diabetes or "diseases" that are linked to Diabetes? Why are some diseases inherited - but only in a few versus all - when, by statistical measurements, it should be everyone suffering from the same conditions caused by Diabetes? The whole "addiction" thing as a "disease" is by far overinflated - and it reflects the "victimhood" mindset our society now suffers from. None of the alcoholics, drug addicts, HIV infected folks have to take responsibility or be held accountable for their behavior - therefore, they qualify as "victims" and can then get "Obamacare" for life and continue to live their destructive lifestyles. And I will continue to keep on quacking loudly and with great fervor each time I hear one of the "enablers" making excuses for Drunk drivers, drug addicts flipping out and killing innocent folks, taking up space in Hospital emergency rooms or whining about how they have it so bad and they're a "victim" of some unidentified genetic disorder that causes them to get behind the wheel after 5 cocktails and kill a family of 4 going to the movies.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Pretty straightforward if you're reading the science on this. Illnesses are in some cases caused by external factors, in some cases by purely internal ones, but it appears most are caused by a combination of both internal and external factors. Nature AND nurture, if you will. So, it is possible the children of addicts may not inherit the exact combinations of genetic factors which contributed to their parents' problems, so they do not become addicted. Or, they avoid exposure to the external factors (alcohol, drug, etc.) which would trip their genetic levers. So there's two basic ways they might not develop their parents' disease.
Of course. As I just said, genetics is part of the picture. Nature and nurture together, and we're only understanding the very beginnings of that picture.
We're really going too far afield here, but I'll just leave it with this: "Statistical measurements (?)" would NOT say everyone should be suffering from the same condition. That's not how any genetic traits work, at all.
Gregor Mendel could have explained that to you all the way back in the 1880s.
entropy
Member
Then we are no better than they. Really, now I do know. Sounds like disinformation to me, plus a pinch of agitprop.
Last edited:
jamesjames
Member
Carl N. Brown nailed it:
I would like to stay away from conspiracy theories and concentrate on the premise of epidemiology and whether "gunviolence" is a real thing apart from other kinds of violent crime.
Carl N. Brown's observation is brilliant! "Gun violence matches the immune system failure theory of disease. People who commit gun violence have more in common with the people who commit non-gun violence than they have with people who own guns. The real problem is violent people, not guns or gun owners."
I believe the psychopathy of a mass shooter involves many things in a profile: loaner, male, lack of empathy, sadism, solipsism, narcissism, a feeling of being wronged by the world or addressing some long-standing pent-up grievance. There's a desire for fame or infamy and yet the act is committed with a cold, unemotional methodology. There are dozens more aspects to it, but the need for infamy brings up the role social media and journalism play in creating the cult of the mass shooter.
I fear that the complexity and statistical insignificance of the mass shooter make it impossible to "prevent" or predict future actions with any certainty. This leads to unconstitutional denial of rights in a "Minority Report" type of intervention for individuals, and sweeping bad gun regulation which only burdens the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners.
I fear that the fall back position for researchers and policy-makers is to draw the wrong conclusions from statistics on crime and gun ownership under the pressure to "do something" about otherwise statistically insignificant numbers.
I would like to stay away from conspiracy theories and concentrate on the premise of epidemiology and whether "gunviolence" is a real thing apart from other kinds of violent crime.
Carl N. Brown's observation is brilliant! "Gun violence matches the immune system failure theory of disease. People who commit gun violence have more in common with the people who commit non-gun violence than they have with people who own guns. The real problem is violent people, not guns or gun owners."
I believe the psychopathy of a mass shooter involves many things in a profile: loaner, male, lack of empathy, sadism, solipsism, narcissism, a feeling of being wronged by the world or addressing some long-standing pent-up grievance. There's a desire for fame or infamy and yet the act is committed with a cold, unemotional methodology. There are dozens more aspects to it, but the need for infamy brings up the role social media and journalism play in creating the cult of the mass shooter.
I fear that the complexity and statistical insignificance of the mass shooter make it impossible to "prevent" or predict future actions with any certainty. This leads to unconstitutional denial of rights in a "Minority Report" type of intervention for individuals, and sweeping bad gun regulation which only burdens the 99.99% of law-abiding gun owners.
I fear that the fall back position for researchers and policy-makers is to draw the wrong conclusions from statistics on crime and gun ownership under the pressure to "do something" about otherwise statistically insignificant numbers.
Last edited:
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,142
Epidemic is a buzz word and has no relation to firearms.
Epidemic:a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
I suppose you wouldn’t be shocked and post about an “epidemic” killing thousands of “innocent” men women and children a year, actually on average more than 100 of them a day, every day, last year. Has been killing people by the tens of thousands for more than 100 years in this country and yet are not regulated and no back ground check is needed to buy one, not to mention is becoming ever more popular as a mass murder tool, not only in this country but world wide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Obviously stopping deaths that could be prevented isn’t the goal of the people that use the tactic of rhetoric over reality. It is intended to catch your attention and it did. Now you just have to be smart enough to realize what is written can be BS.
Epidemic:a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.
I suppose you wouldn’t be shocked and post about an “epidemic” killing thousands of “innocent” men women and children a year, actually on average more than 100 of them a day, every day, last year. Has been killing people by the tens of thousands for more than 100 years in this country and yet are not regulated and no back ground check is needed to buy one, not to mention is becoming ever more popular as a mass murder tool, not only in this country but world wide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year
Obviously stopping deaths that could be prevented isn’t the goal of the people that use the tactic of rhetoric over reality. It is intended to catch your attention and it did. Now you just have to be smart enough to realize what is written can be BS.
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
The "epidemic" isn't really about guns but it IS about violence, at least in the broad context. And that is where they should concentrate as it is that violence for no apparent reason that is plaguing society. When somebody feels that they have been made the focus of somebody's joke or insult, instead of going and facing that person and arguing it out, they ramp up the reaction 10 X more than necessary and beat the person into a bloody pulp or they shoot them. And the insult deosn't even have to be true.
Remember the old test where you tell the first of 100 people something and they pass it on down the line? By the time it reaches the 100th person, it bears little resemblance to its original form. Yet they shoot somebody for a mixed up incorrect piece of gossip? Try concentrating on "mental issues" CDC.
SteveChuck
Member
You definitely took out the "X" ring. But, since most of this generation of Government Hacks have been indoctrinated in Universities and even High Schools that are Marxist-Socialist training centers, what do you think the odds are that your suggestion(s) will ever come to be? Great post though - excellent point(s).
Hokkmike
Member
IF gun violence is an epidemic then a blathering 24/7 headline seeking liberal news media is the petri dish.
CapnMac
Member
Part of the problem here is in world view..
Our leftish neighbors subscribe to a unique worldview. That everyone is equally likely to be a criminal. That criminals only disobey one law at a time, and for some reason (the reasons being legion: poverty, racisim, worng political party in power. chemtrails, fluoridated water, et al).
Which is fine and dandy, they may believe as they wish.
However, that flies in the face of demonstrable statistics. Those horribly dry meta-analyses created by the inexorable tide of actuarial science.
A bit less than 10%of the US population engages in criminality. This rate is generally true for generally similarly industrialized nations (excepting those with plutocracies, kleptocrasies, and severely socialized states). Depending upon the source, between 26% & 36% of the criminal class can be categorized as "violent" criminals.
Sadly for our leftish friends, those violent criminals are largely socipathic, they need no reason to commit crimes; nor do they feel any need to obey laws, any laws. They cannot be sent to Time Out where they will reconsider their ways. If they see something they want, they will take it. If we give them GED or college credit while incarcerated, they do not change, they are just less-ignorant sociopaths.
Now, if the CDC would like to try and examine why such a high percentage of our fellows grow up to be dysfunctional, I believe we would all applaud that.
However, 25% of 10% is a mere 2.5% of the population. Creating policies which treat 100% of us as potentially evil, rather than dealing with the 2-2.5% who are, in fact, the problem.
Our leftish neighbors subscribe to a unique worldview. That everyone is equally likely to be a criminal. That criminals only disobey one law at a time, and for some reason (the reasons being legion: poverty, racisim, worng political party in power. chemtrails, fluoridated water, et al).
Which is fine and dandy, they may believe as they wish.
However, that flies in the face of demonstrable statistics. Those horribly dry meta-analyses created by the inexorable tide of actuarial science.
A bit less than 10%of the US population engages in criminality. This rate is generally true for generally similarly industrialized nations (excepting those with plutocracies, kleptocrasies, and severely socialized states). Depending upon the source, between 26% & 36% of the criminal class can be categorized as "violent" criminals.
Sadly for our leftish friends, those violent criminals are largely socipathic, they need no reason to commit crimes; nor do they feel any need to obey laws, any laws. They cannot be sent to Time Out where they will reconsider their ways. If they see something they want, they will take it. If we give them GED or college credit while incarcerated, they do not change, they are just less-ignorant sociopaths.
Now, if the CDC would like to try and examine why such a high percentage of our fellows grow up to be dysfunctional, I believe we would all applaud that.
However, 25% of 10% is a mere 2.5% of the population. Creating policies which treat 100% of us as potentially evil, rather than dealing with the 2-2.5% who are, in fact, the problem.
I believe the argument ended with Carl N. Brown’s post. Citing sources, within the CDC, CLEARLY states there is an agenda. Even if the research doesn’t support it at this time. Also, short of having a mother who partakes in alcohol or drugs while pregnant, an addiction can never take place without the user (victim), using. Therefore it cannot be a disease. A disease has to be genetic (nature) or introduced (nurture). A person who is a heroin addict (just an example) who never had parents, grandparents, or great grandparents that ever even smoked cigarettes happens all the time. This isn’t a recessive gene that mysteriously manifests itself. Addiction is a psychological dependency that becomes a physical dependency. Just like socialism.
Archie
Member
Yes, the CDC being staffed by liberal appointees, is anti-gun.
My only thought is to continue pressing home the fraudulent nature of the term "gun violence". There is NO SUCH THING as "gun violence". The problem is violence, regardless of instrumentality. Violence is human conduct, not the result of handling an artifact. That is the problem, not 'things'. Attention of society or government has to be directed toward the problem of violence, not things.
It is irrational to blame human misconduct on an inanimate object.
Also note this will impress lawmakers more than the liberal twits one encounters in life. A 'true believer' liberal will never believe anything not in the liberal agenda. Lawmakers will respond to voters.
My only thought is to continue pressing home the fraudulent nature of the term "gun violence". There is NO SUCH THING as "gun violence". The problem is violence, regardless of instrumentality. Violence is human conduct, not the result of handling an artifact. That is the problem, not 'things'. Attention of society or government has to be directed toward the problem of violence, not things.
It is irrational to blame human misconduct on an inanimate object.
Also note this will impress lawmakers more than the liberal twits one encounters in life. A 'true believer' liberal will never believe anything not in the liberal agenda. Lawmakers will respond to voters.
I would not let this bug you. In many US places opioids kill more people than people with guns.
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
As liberty depends on the decency and courage of the people, so despotism depends on subduing them with terror. It is a fundamental truth that unreasoning fear epitomizes the threat to liberty. Unreasoning fear makes people susceptible to the insane argument that the threat comes from the means of self-defense, not the evil will of would-be despots slyly seeking to strip them away. Though ostensibly focused on fomenting a superstitious fear of guns, this insane logic actually exploits the moral vulnerability of people who no longer believe in their own goodwill, their own capacity to control the evil impulses connected with the unrestrained ambition for success, and the pleasure and power it brings. People beguiled by these external idols already feel themselves to be thralls, in bondage to the external goods for which they have sacrificed their souls. In pursuit of these things they have lied, cheated and laid waste to the lives and hopes of those around them. And, when frustrated in that pursuit they have consoled themselves with fantasies of the violence they would do to all who stand in their way, if ever they had the means.
CoalTrain49
Member
In a county adjacent to mine they had 37 opioid overdoses in one week last summer, 3 of them were fatal. That's a county of roughly 750,000. Now that's an epidemic. They aren't banning needles in that county, they give them away. Opioid use is illegal but it is treated as an illness rather than a crime. In a lot of cases if one just goes into rehab there is no jail time.
If epidemiologists are going to study violence with guns shouldn't they also study violence with automobiles and baseball bats?
Last edited:
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,078
^^^This.
Pablo J said:
Plus, one would wonder how much the buying, selling and trying to procure money to feed the addiction of said Opioids contributes to gun violence and violence in general.
- Status
