The Coronavirus Pandemic

[als_revenge]

And yeah, the distinction between "all available research demonstrates that gun control is effective" and "most available research demonstrates that gun control is effective and the rest is inconclusive" doesn't seem all that important to me. Kinda seems like we're splitting hairs here.

If I said it like that, I said it wrong. Most of the studies are inconclusive, very few (in the US) demonstrate gun control is effective. For example, based on the Rand study, the most effective gun control policy is back ground checks. But banning certain types of weapons, for example, there's next to no unbiased research in the US that demonstrates this has any impact on anything....

[GretzkysMullet]

If I said it like that, I said it wrong. Most of the studies are inconclusive, very few (in the US) demonstrate gun control is effective. For example, based on the Rand study, the most effective gun control policy is back ground checks. But banning certain types of weapons, for example, there's next to no unbiased research in the US that demonstrates this has any impact on anything....

We have established all this. The RAND study you posted found that many gun control measures have inconclusive data for efficacy in the US. I get that. Why are we only talking about the US though, particularly if the data isn't robust enough to come to conclusions? As I pointed out previously data from countries like Australia and New Zealand is both relevant and important to consider when discussing policy change.

Inconclusive also /= ineffective. It just means there isn't enough data/research to confirm one way or the other. Also, and I don't have time to dig in to all the studies they looked at, but how can you evaluate whether gun control works without first implementing and seeing what happens? (aside from looking at data from other similar countries, lol) It doesn't really make sense to me that there would be good data on gun control in a country that has virtually none.

[als_revenge]

We have established all this. The RAND study you posted found that many gun control measures have inconclusive data for efficacy in the US. I get that. Why are we only talking about the US though, particularly if the data isn't robust enough to come to conclusions? As I pointed out previously data from countries like Australia and New Zealand is both relevant and important to consider when discussing policy change.

Inconclusive also /= ineffective. It just means there isn't enough data/research to confirm one way or the other. Also, and I don't have time to dig in to all the studies they looked at, but how can you evaluate whether gun control works without first implementing and seeing what happens? It doesn't really make sense to me that there would be good data on gun control in a country that has virtually none.

I must be missing your point, because Americans have a different culture, a different legal system, and it isn't an Island in the middle of a big fat ocean...

Are you saying that a gun control study in Australia would translate to the USA? It just seems a stretch to me....

[Rylant]

The research is by the Rand Corporation, a non-biased entity. And they started with almost 22,000 studies (i.e. all studies found using multiple databases), but only 123 passed their initial screening (so I do not think the pro-gun BS made the cut)…

So if somebody said “all research indicates that driving drunk is dangerous” you think a reasonable argument to that statement would be “umm, actually there are some studies which came to an inconclusive result, so you are wrong”? You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Also way to ignore one of my main points. Research on gun violence in the US is stalled and hindered at almost every level. Politicians, the NRA and Second Amendment Activists regularly do everything they can to prevent study on the subject. They spend millions on the cause of preventing gun violence study. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? You should look it up if you don’t...

Rylant

[Rylant]

I must be missing your point, because Americans have a different culture, a different legal system, and it isn't an Island in the middle of a big fat ocean...

Are you saying that a gun control study in Australia would translate to the USA? It just seems a stretch to me....

Yes this is a pretty typical response by gun supporters. The US is different; We aren’t an island in the middle of a big fat ocean (this actually made my laugh. The US is sort of an island in the middle of a big fat ocean, it’s just attached to Canada and Mexico, and I am not sure how that is relevant anyway); Australia is like a different planet; we have a different legal system; it wouldn’t work; because of all of this, we better not try to reduce gun violence...

Rylant

[als_revenge]

So if somebody said “all research indicates that driving drunk is dangerous” you think a reasonable argument to that statement would be “umm, actually there are some studies which came to an inconclusive result, so you are wrong”? You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Also way to ignore one of my main points. Research on gun violence in the US is stalled and hindered at almost every level. Politicians, the NRA and Second Amendment Activists regularly do everything they can to prevent study on the subject. They spend millions on the cause of preventing gun violence study. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? You should look it up if you don’t...

Rylant

My issue was with the sentence that ALL research leads to one conclusion (it was particularly ironic given that the post also did not cite a single shred of evidence that supported the "opinion" being made).

And the response seems to be supporting that ALL research leads to one conclusion, even though an unbiased sources reports that the majority of research in fact does not.

But I get it. There is research that supports your view (which counts), and then all the other unbiased research (that doesn't count)...

If I were too guess, I'm more pro gun control than you are. But I also fail to see the point in making arguments that say things like "all research supports my view"...

[als_revenge]

So if somebody said “all research indicates that driving drunk is dangerous” you think a reasonable argument to that statement would be “umm, actually there are some studies which came to an inconclusive result, so you are wrong”? You see how ridiculous that sounds?

Also way to ignore one of my main points. Research on gun violence in the US is stalled and hindered at almost every level. Politicians, the NRA and Second Amendment Activists regularly do everything they can to prevent study on the subject. They spend millions on the cause of preventing gun violence study. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? You should look it up if you don’t...

Rylant

And yet, amazingly, the Rand Corporation was still able to do this study, as well as highlight a few gun control policies that actually have evidence to back them...

[GretzkysMullet]

My issue was with the sentence that ALL research leads to one conclusion (it was particularly ironic given that the post also did not cite a single shred of evidence that supported the "opinion" being made).

And the response seems to be supporting that ALL research leads to one conclusion, even though an unbiased sources reports that the majority of research in fact does not.

But I get it. There is research that supports your view (which counts), and then all the other unbiased research (that doesn't count)...

If I were too guess, I'm more pro gun control than you are. But I also fail to see the point in making arguments that say things like "all research supports my view"...

The majority of research.. if we conveniently exclude all research not conducted in the US. These contortions are too funny. Not to mention the fact that you seem to be the one saying research doesn't count, specifically anything outside of what you posted.

[Rylant]

And yet, amazingly, the Rand Corporation was still able to do this study, as well as highlight a few gun control policies that actually have evidence to back them...

Yes. Because despite the gun lobby trying very hard to stifle research on gun violence, there are still some people who are passionate about it on the other side, and other people who are genuinely interested in the results. These people have managed to conduct some research into the topic, although it is not near the level that it needs to be, because of the gun lobby. So, yes there are some results out there that highly respected organizations like Rand can use. Your point is baffling to me...

Rylant

[Wonko]

At the end of the the day the majority of Americans want common sense gun laws implemented (60+%). So why has it been so difficult to get any laws passed?

One word.

The NRA. It pays off politicians and lobbyists. It stifles research. It spreads misinformation and fear.

IF you like democracy so much stand up for it. Demand that the majority of Americans get the common sense gun laws they want.

[rataylor22]

I must be missing your point, because Americans have a different culture, a different legal system, and it isn't an Island in the middle of a big fat ocean...

Are you saying that a gun control study in Australia would translate to the USA? It just seems a stretch to me....

No. We’re saying every gun control study in every other country would translate to the USA, because they all form uniform conclusions.

[rataylor22]

The research is by the Rand Corporation, a non-biased entity. And they started with almost 22,000 studies (i.e. all studies found using multiple databases), but only 123 passed their initial screening (so I do not think the pro-gun BS made the cut)…

Someone is unaware of how difficult the NRA has made any tangible gun research. The studies are biased before they even start because the NRA wants them to be.

[GretzkysMullet]

Trump says today he's been taking hydroxychloriquine for about a week and a half.. Just wow.

[Wonko]

Trump says today he's been taking hydroxychloriquine for about a week and a half.. Just wow.

Then he gets his Tarot cards read while his religious advisers lay hands on him and shout out the demons.

[doulos]

He has the intelligence of an avocado nut. Not surprising.